Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
James Steele
113 Followers
Shawn Trachen
4280 Followers
Who New Media
1788 Followers
Jerry James Stone
7542 Followers
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12547 Followers
Away, back when I can
6502 Followers
dirtyfriesJan 25, 2012
Our tax code needs revision from top to bottom.
It's popular to blame people for not paying enough, but as long as they're paying what the code asks for, I can't be angry towards them. I can, however, ask that the code be revised.
kingnovaJan 25, 2012
That would be true if it wasn't the same people benefiting who lobbied for the change back in 2007. Bain, as one example...
verybestsalviaJan 26, 2012
Yes it is true and I agree with you.
zeedeoJan 25, 2012
It is useless to revise a piece of $#it. No matter how you clean it, poop will always be poop. We need a new system.
zeedeoJan 27, 2012
lol just to clarify i am referring to the tax system not windows
spuy767Jan 25, 2012
I find it hard to believe that Gates doesn't realize that if you took every that every person earned who made over 1 million dollars that we still wouldn't have a surplus. It's a spending problem, not a taxation problem. The tax system needs to be drastically simplified, so that companies like GE who rake in money can't write off so much that they pay less than I do.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitJan 25, 2012
When those top 400 people have as much as the bottom 150 million people, taxing them at the same rate as everyone else would make a huge difference that would help everyone.
mvaJan 26, 2012
I agree as long as the bottom 150 million pay taxes. Give them benefits if they need them, but if you are not participating by paying, then you have no real stake in what is happening. No free rides, rich or poor.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitJan 26, 2012
Oh, we do pay taxes. We pay more federal taxes than corporations, and it can be argued that we pay more total taxes than the 1%.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
mvaJan 26, 2012
Well the corporations certainly need to pay their taxes, but there are 99X as many of us, so i would tend to assume that we, as a collective, pay more taxes. I'm completely cool with that. I just think that regardless of income, everyone should pay equal taxes by percentage and since "corporation are people" they should pay the same percentage as well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
josh53188Jan 26, 2012
This was for 1 tax season - 2009-2010. We had tax rebates for a badly needed economic stimulus package. The almost 50% of Americans that didn't pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES that year, not to be confused with all of the other taxes they paid, will have to pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES for 2010-2011, unless they are otherwise exempt due to being below the lowest income bracket..
mvaJan 26, 2012
But that is my point, no one should be able to be below paying income tax. If everyone is paying, then everyone has a higher stake to pay attention to what our leaders are doing and who we put in there. You should not be able to get a income tax refund that is greater then the amount that you paid in, it just should not be possible, how can I refund you money you never gave me. Now ultimately, they are just going to end up with more services to offset this cost, which is completely cool. But if they are paying, then they have a right to demand their government serve them, as they are participating in the system. One of the large issues that we face is effectively, almost half of America pays not federal income tax. There is something wrong with a system where this is the case.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
umdweiJan 26, 2012
Your inability to do math and your desire to fight for those 400 people who couldn't care less about you is why our broken system is stuck in limbo from getting better.
mvaJan 26, 2012
which part of my math do you not like?
mvaJan 26, 2012
I am not really fighting for the top 400 people or the bottom 150 million, but the approximate50% that are in-between. The ones that pay the majority of Taxes in the country, because the people below them pay nothing and the people above them do not pay their fare share (or at least the ones that do not, some do). I care for the 180 Million that pay there taxes, were generally responsible in life, and now carry the others. Why should someone pay 0 in taxes because they decided not to complete high school and have kids, even though there is no way they can afford to pay for their own life, let alone the life of children they recklessly brought into the world. I have no problem paying more, I just don;t think it is right they pay nothing.
umdweiJan 26, 2012
I don't disagree with you that the top and bottom should have to pay income taxes. The problem with the bottom is that there's no income, so, I'm not sure what you're driving at.
I personally don't have a problem with wanting to make money either. The top deserves to be rewarded for their hard work if they did so within the law. However, the divide in this country is so large that there soon will be a point where most people (consumers) will simply not be able to afford anything that comes out. What will they do then?
ben7337Jan 25, 2012
It's actually a good mix of both. Income taxes, especially for the wealthy are at record lows, despite them holding far more wealth than they did relative to the overall population in the 20th century. You can't give the rich a significantly bigger slice of the pie and then tax them less.
However it should be noted that taxes dropped significantly in the 70's or 60's with major tax reform which closed many loopholes. However since then there has been more and more legistlation each year to create new methods of minimizing taxes for those with the monetary means to hire someone to find a way to do it.
Also making capital gains tax ridiculously low doesn't help since that's where a lot of the income for the wealthy is. Capital gains can essentially act as their wages, and should be taxed fairly as a part of income. Throughout the whole 20th century the average value was around 25-30% at the maximum bracket, and yet for the last few years it was 15%, the lowest is had been since the great depression, and now it is going up to 20% it seems. It has been low since 1997 despite no major economic downturn though, so clearly that isn't helping.
As for spending, we have rampant spending on wars that are in essence unwinnable against an invisible enemy that can hide their goals and feelings, whose hate can spread and numbers can grow just from the civilians we wrongly kill. We are wasting this money fighting an infinitely regenerative invisible beast. On top of that Obama is spending out of control, Bush was spending excessively, and we really need to reign things back in to the end of Clinton's presidency where we had this lovely thing called a surplus
ernesthuaJan 26, 2012
One source of huge spending, which neither party will reign in, is the gigantic expansion in military and intelligence contractors that Bush chose to spend without putting on the books. I don't hear any Republicans saying "my bad" when talking about massive, unaccountable spending, and I don't see Obama and the Democrats even trying to cut this.
Meanwhile, all this $$ is hidden behind a cloud of secrecy, and we all have to pay it.
josh53188Jan 26, 2012
I don't think Capital Gains should be flat. It should be bracketed like Fed Inc Tax. Why should my savings account that earns $7k have 20% taken away, while 200 million gets taxed the same. I think that 20 to maybe 24% at most should be the highest bracket. We don't want to encourage people to make their wealth here and then retire somewhere else. 30% Cap gains is just too high to keep the money in this country when investing.
It's not a competition but as citizens of this country, it's up to us to pay a fair share. We really should be stimulating the lower earners, allowing those in the middle to just pay the middle share, and those at the top to pay the highest... but not taking so much that they're better off somewhere else.
I hope that as a country we make it a priority to bolster the lower classes through less taxation without government welfare. I would even hope for an initiative to remove Social Security for retirees(over a period of time) and charge 2.5% Medicare for Employee and 2.5% for Employer. Then we can have optional investment of up to 5% for 401k that the employer would have to match up to 5%. That way we can still get the same back from Social Security, just without the government. Don't want to remove Medicare because the sick, disabled, and elderly are entitled to healthcare no matter what in my opinion.
ncmusicJan 27, 2012
Thumbs up! Capital gains should also have progressive tax rates, easiest way would be to consider it income. Though I think it might be better to separate it so that things like small savings accounts are taxed at all.
asfinktersezwutJan 26, 2012
Watch or read any interview with Bill or Warren when they talk about this stuff - almost every time they say that spending has to come down and the deficit has to be payed down along with the tax reforms they are pushing.
hers's just one randomly picked with the transcript below it
http://www.valuewalk.com/2011/11/warren-buffett-increase-taxes-cut-spending/#.TyCsr6VSTTo
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
If we hadn't extended the Bush tax cuts, that would have cut the deficit by almost $3.7 trillion over 10 years. Now, couple that with the $900 billion in cuts that we enacted and the $1.5+ trillion in cuts that we could have made if the system was not completely broken by partisanship (which will be fixed, one way or the other after the election) and we're looking at $6.1 trillion over 10 years in cuts from a projected deficit of $13 trillion, taking us down to about $7 trillion in deficit.
This doesn't get us all the way there -and note, we do not need to reach $0 deficit- but it gets us a long way. So no, spending cuts are not the only tool we have to address the deficit.
barfomaticJan 26, 2012
Our tax code comprises over 70,000 pages ! Even the IRS has a hard time with it. Best thing would be just go to a flat but graduated tax.
dustinthewind2Jan 26, 2012
Revised and shortened by about 7,000 pages...
chordonblueJan 26, 2012
Whenever someone starts talking about what's 'fair' in taxes, I think of this scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm5XUi3tKos
By the way, if you want a perfect explanation of humanity, see: It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world. ;)
sotthapanaJan 26, 2012
The tax code needs to be thrown out!
An income-tax does nothing for the American people except create a huge federal government that tells us what we can put in our bodies, what we can say, and what we can dream... Because policing the world with an empire and being basically a "mobster" forcing & enticing other countries to do our bidding is completely destroying the economy, completely eroding America's place of trust in the world, and taking away the grand American dream.
It's time for the government to serve the people!!!
WhoNewMediaJan 25, 2012
Windows may have sucked in the past but I'll be damned if Bill didn't turn out to be a good guy in the end.
thefirewireJan 25, 2012
As a Mac user I have immesne respect for Mr Bill Gates. A good guy indeed
delphium226Jan 26, 2012
As a toaster user, I agree.
rudegarJan 25, 2012
he stepped down as CEO back in 2008 you know..
jonathan391Jan 25, 2012
So? Make him less respectable
rudegarJan 25, 2012
no but he seems to imply that win7 turned it around
zeedeoJan 25, 2012
He is still alive you know so it's not the end for him, he becomes awesomer as time goes by
mvaJan 26, 2012
His original dream, for every person to have a pc, so they could level the playing field with corporations, was always awesome and has shaped our society in many great ways. I am excited to see him turn that same passion and brilliance towards advancing society, not just a wallet.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2012
Bill Gates != Microsoft Products. He is a true gentleman; regardless of the quality of his company's products.
manicdvlnJan 25, 2012
Kinda weird isn't it this guy created a ruthless company and changed into a nice guy with his noble actions while Steve Jobs also created a ruthless company but died as an assh**e.
theonewhoknowsJan 25, 2012
It was never really ruthless, it was just that most people used it for compatibility reasons.
He was always good to employees, developers and charities. They never did much in the way of retail customer support, but I wouldn't say that they gauged customers the way other corps have done.
MS gave a lot of software tools away for free. Compare to IBM or Apple, who wanted to control every aspect of the home or business computer from hardware manufacture, to software, to support - and have abilities to check, monitor and approve all 3rd party activity (including even developers of cosmetic add-ons). In fact, it was Microsoft's willingness to be as inviting as a corporation could be that led to their early success and adoption.
It was also, in part, Bill's noninterest in being a ruthless company that led to their loss of market share. Imagine how easy it could have been for MS to hold onto the marketshare they had. I don't think MS was every really run in a ruthless kind of way.
icwydJan 26, 2012
Oh Please!
Windows compatibility with DR DOS?
Word Perfect (SCO)?
The whole computer industry (Microsoft Tax)?
SCO vs Linux?
H1B?
Many, Many more shifty (illegal) business practices.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydJan 27, 2012
So, theonewhoknows is full of s**t and I get down voted. In ancient times (90's) Bill Gates was called out because of his lack of donations. He was known as the one who gave nothing.
Look it up. If I am full of s**t, then let me know!
Gates is more of a Nobel. As in Nobel Peace Prize. The guy who was known for selling the world its weapons.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theonewhoknowsJan 27, 2012
You are of the same sort who would defend that capitalism is ALL great in its truest form, and that capitalists should be left alone to make their billions on the backs of their workforce, and then when we reference one of the most successful capitalists who decided to volunteer his earned fortune and life to helping others, now you have something negative to say.
At least you are not a hypocrite.
icwydJan 27, 2012
What the hell? Can I buy weed from you?
tweenieJan 25, 2012
Why can't all rich people be more like him...........
Romney et al should take a leaf out of his book
concusionJan 25, 2012
The 1% realize they are not taxed enough, the sad part is its the retards barely making 35k a year like a few people i won't mention on this site that are arguing anti-tax for these people.
stabsteerJan 26, 2012
You nailed it. My God there are a lot of ignorant white trash idiots in this country. How else do you explain how Bush won-twice?!
icwydJan 27, 2012
How can you explain how Reagan won and is still held in high esteem today?
stabsteerFeb 3, 2012
...By the same idiots who voted for Bush and keep voting for all the Republicans...
Trickle down at it's finest...
It's been 30 years, any of you teabaggers rich yet?
Didn't think so!
punkrawkerJan 25, 2012
its funny cause you can't criticize him by saying "well, then why don't you donate your money if you feel you are being under-taxed" ... cause he and warren buffet already donated more than anyone ever has before.
its nice to see not all rich folk squander their money away on useless crap.
ObaAdeleJan 25, 2012
I agree with him 100% and he is a decent American that understands the true meaning of the "United," collectivism.
crom99Jan 25, 2012
In before the "WRITE A CHECK" derp-age.
apokalyps2547Jan 25, 2012
Too late, the derpage beat you by a minute.
psypher1Jan 25, 2012
DERPSZ!!! O_o
markglJan 25, 2012
Why knock it. It's true. He doesn't need to write a check, he can do it with a credit card.
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
asfinktersezwutJan 26, 2012
That's right, you know more about the economy and more about finance than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet - two virtual Gods of Capitalism. But you... you are so much smarter than them.
markglJan 26, 2012
Yes I am.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
Did you ever see A Beautiful Mind? The scene where John explains that if everyone does what's in his own self-interest (pursue the hot blonde) that they will all lose, but if they coordinate their efforts, they can all win? It's kinda like that.
If one person pays a little more tax, it does nothing. It takes a village.
199807208Jan 26, 2012
yeah and no one got the hot blonde did they? they all collectively would get less, even the people who could get better, nice example.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
Clearly you didn't see the movie. Either way, no one gets the blonde. If they all pursue her, they cancel each others' efforts and no one gets laid. But if they each agree to pursue a different girl (ie her friends) then they each get laid.
199807208Jan 26, 2012
I did see the movie, and that's not true because the higher quality individual would get the blonde just like always, why should that person agree to settle for someone lower quality?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spectecjrJan 28, 2012
*sigh* Go watch the movie again, and pay attention this time. The higher quality individual doesn't get the blond, because he's fighting with other high-quality individuals to get her.
This is the problem with metaphors - people like you take them as being the actual fact of the situation. So sure, you can pick up a hot blonde - that's great. Enjoy that. I'm sure that's a useful life skill for you. Except it's ONLY A METAPHOR FOR THE NASH EQUILIBRIUM.
If you'd prefer, we can go with the actual definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
Let (S, f) be a game with n players, where Si is the strategy set for player i, S=S1 X S2 ... X Sn is the set of strategy profiles and f=(f1(x), ..., fn(x)) is the payoff function for x S. Let xi be a strategy profile of player i and x-i be a strategy profile of all players except for player i. When each player i {1, ..., n} chooses strategy xi resulting in strategy profile x = (x1, ..., xn) then player i obtains payoff fi(x). Note that the payoff depends on the strategy profile chosen, i.e., on the strategy chosen by player i as well as the strategies chosen by all the other players. A strategy profile x* S is a Nash equilibrium (NE) if no unilateral deviation in strategy by any single player is profitable for that player, that is
A game can have either a pure-strategy or a mixed Nash Equilibrium, (in the latter a pure strategy is chosen stochastically with a fixed frequency). Nash proved that if we allow mixed strategies, then every game with a finite number of players in which each player can choose from finitely many pure strategies has at least one Nash equilibrium.
When the inequality above holds strictly (with > instead of ) for all players and all feasible alternative strategies, then the equilibrium is classified as a strict Nash equilibrium. If instead, for some player, there is exact equality between and some other strategy in the set S, then the equilibrium is classified as a weak Nash equilibrium.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
Yes, because women are always picking the highest quality individual, lol. Do you even listen to yourself? Or have you just never met a hot chick in your LIFE?
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
But anyway, to answer your question, the reason the "best guy" would choose a "lower quality" woman is because he doesn't actually know he is the best guy in advance.
If there are 6 guys in a place, and 6 gals, and all 6 guys agree on who is the best gal, they could all pursue her, thus each one gets a 1 in 6 chance of being the best guy, followed by a 1 in x chance that she's actually DTF.
But if the 6 guys conspire to not step on each other's feet, then each one is guaranteed to be the "best guy" in the running for the girl he's pursuing, and he only has to worry about the 1 in x chance that she's actually DTF.
What's more, how much difference does it really make whether you're getting laid with the hottest chick in the place, or just a reasonably attractive chick?
(Incidentally, I'd probably suggest they attack the pack as a pack - that is, have the two groups intermingle collectively, with the guys signaling each other to what's going on, so that if a guy starts getting somewhere with one of the girls the other guys can focus their attention on the remaining availables. Why? Because being the best guy in contention on that particular day DOES NOT necessarily mean the girl's going to be DTF you. Maybe she likes guys who are tall/short/thin/athletic/whatever. Maybe you just remind her of the creepy uncle that touched her when she was little. Whatever the case, being the only guy to show up does not mean you walk away with the trophy by default.)
199807208Feb 3, 2012
that argument is like saying how much difference does it make whether you're worth $30B or $50B, that's not the point
amaoicanFeb 3, 2012
So you're saying you'd rather take a 1/6 chance of f**king a 9 (5/6 chance of f**king your hand) rather than a 1/1 chance of f**king an 8?
199807208Feb 3, 2012
business is not a zero-sum game where someone has to lose for another to win
amaoicanFeb 3, 2012
The woman is not a prostitute - who she sleeps with, she does so for pleasure, not business.
199807208Feb 3, 2012
I agree, and that's why I don't think this analogy translates over to business and the marketplace
amaoicanFeb 3, 2012
I don't see how it's my fault that you misapplied the analogy. I was saying, if one person adopts the idea that the group should not all chase the blonde, and he goes after one of the blonde's friends, well, good for him, that'll make him feel good, but it won't have the group benefits he was seeking by adopting the position.
If Warren Buffett paid 3 or 4 extra percentage points, he would feel a bit better about himself for doing a good thing for his country, and the deficit would be ever so slightly smaller, but we'd still be driving over a fiscal cliff. The deficit is bigger than any one man, even Warren Buffett.
199807208Feb 3, 2012
my point is I don't think the lesson from that movie can actually be applied to economics, like you and others want it to be
amaoicanFeb 3, 2012
This isn't even about economics - it's about politics.
amaoicanFeb 3, 2012
Basically, the way I see it, what Gates and Buffett and others are saying is something like this: "I am willing to personally give up several million dollars in exchange for my state (meaning the federal government) returning to financial solvency."
Which is why the "You can always write a check if you don't feel like you pay enough taxes..." crowd are full of s**t. He's not saying he wants to pay millions of dollars just for the sake of doing it - he is willing to pay the millions of dollars as part of a broader plan to actually fix a problem. No fixed problem, no millions of dollars.
In every transaction, each participant offers to give something in exchange for something else; in almost no other transaction would we see "I'm not going to give you what you ask for but you can give me what you offered" as a reasonable reply.
199807208Feb 3, 2012
of course they don't mind raising taxes, they already have their money. it's called a barrier to entry, the same reason corporations lobby, are you really that naive?
amaoicanFeb 3, 2012
Elaborate.
investmentbankerJan 26, 2012
It's easy to say this when you make $100,000 in the time it takes you to take a dump :) In order to get to that level of wealth you absolutely have to have a significantly strong legal / tax structure in place so you've masterminded tax practices to reduce payments to a minimum. Most ultra high net worth individuals become that way by minimizing tax payments. So yes he doesn't pay enough but he knew that every single step of the way en route to the peak.
austrologiJan 26, 2012
No, most do it through corporatism, where government subsidies and insider relationships create artificial monopolies where individuals and companies can capture rents above an economic level of 0% in perfect competition.
letuslearnJan 26, 2012
He is right.The wealthy people should contribute more.It will be great for the country and society.
intrepiddesignJan 25, 2012
Typical republican response: derrrr, he can always write a check to the guberment if he want to, nothing stop him.
markglJan 25, 2012
It is the answer to his problem. Derr.
austrologiJan 25, 2012
Whats your point..
You guys always say "more taxes", we say "Write a check"
Does predicting our response make our point less valid? You don't think we can predict your dribble on raising taxes?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
intrepiddesignJan 25, 2012
My point is asinine comments like "write a check" completely miss the point that we are the UNITED states and we all got into this mess together and it's going to take collective action to get out of it, and greedy pricks that refuse to come to the aid of the very system that affords them all their wealth are nothing short of unpatriotic.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Agreed. So often, this type of reply lacks any critical thinking skills. So, if I'm concerned about homelessness, I should just write a check and 'not' push for political action? Gates is making a statement about the system. Writing a 'check' has nothing to do with that.
austrologiJan 26, 2012
"I'm concerned about homelessness, I should just write a check"
Absolutely, "write a check".... this is a cause you value. Let me "write checks" to causes I care about.
Why should Peter and Paul, who can vote but contribute nothing in taxes get to dictate to me what causes I need to give my money to?
intrepiddesignJan 26, 2012
Because in a just society, if there is an overwhelming number of have-nots, its the responsibility of the haves to carry more of the load. Unless you like living with staggering economic inequity which sounds more like the American nightmare. Maybe it's more that just causes you care about that need help.
austrologiJan 26, 2012
liberty trumps economic inequity, by your line of logic, inequality is a justification for violence by its mere existence. Thus do I have justification to steal simply because the person has more than me?
And its not simply because we vote to do something. There is nothing instrinsic about voting that makes an immoral act moral, at best it equally distributes the blame for such an act. Theres no morality sausage making machine in democracy. People decry wars by the US, if they are by elected leaders, by your logic wars cannot be immoral.
In a just society, people for relationships based on mutual agreement between individuals. This invented responsibility is just that .. invented. We are not born with original sin in which we must repent by taking care of those less fortunate, it should be our moral duty to act, but inaction is not an excuse for violent coercion.
199807208Jan 26, 2012
if they are only successful because of the country they live in, then why isn't everyone successful?
intrepiddesignJan 26, 2012
Their success isn't due to the country, meaning just because you live here you are guaranteed success, it is that they are afforded the opportunity to be successful. And by opportunity I mean they were born into money, or a certain area of the country, etc. Bill Gates would not be successful if he was born in North Korea. But if you want to ask questions that you and I both know have obvious answers in some feeble attempt to be witty, then you go girl.
Living in the United States is a luxury, we are, for all our faults, still the glittering city on the hill. With that luxury comes social responsibility, especially from those who benefit most from said luxury.
I understand your brain is wired a certain way and nothing anyone says, no amount of reason, or compassion will ever get you to see things from an empathetic standpoint, so discussing this with you is a lot like arguing with the rain.
asfinktersezwutJan 26, 2012
Maybe if you actually thought about the larger picture for just one second instead of knee-jerk reacting you might understand what is happening.
There is a discussion going on in this country (and others at the same time) about the apparent disparity in the tax system which taxes earned income at a higher rate than investment income. Since most wealthy people make the majority of their money through investment income, some people support increasing taxes on the wealthy via increasing the tax rate on investment income.
Other people attack this action as "class warfare" defending "the rich" and saying those who do this are just jealous of the rich and know nothing about investment and the impact on the economy and all hell will rain down upon us if we continue to go down this path of class warfare.
Along comes Warren Buffet; titan of the business world - God of Capitalism, and he says no... no I do believe that we (the rich) could pay more in taxes without impacting our lives and destroying the economy.
Oh noes!!! cries the right... the voices ring out across teh interwebs that night - that Warren Buffet is a traitor to the fight! Him and his Liberal lozers will surely die this night...
Then out of the shadows he comes.. the great Bill Gates - another paragon of American Business stands beside Warren and says yes, I agree with you Warren - we can pay more.
rabble-rabble-rabble cries out from deh intertoobz...oh no ... onoes! Not Bill too! What, oh what - oh what can we do!?! Ow, wait, hehe... it is just deez two!
So Warren and Bill get together and they gather over a Hundred other Business tycoons and ultra-rich to lobby Congress and say to you, the tax code is unbalanced and we should pay our fair share too - the common man pays more on his earnings than any of us do!
Yet still in their basements the right wing sits, their faith put to the test by these heretics, their logic distorted and shaking their fists, those liberal bastards sucking on society's t**s.
And here we sit with thousands of angry little men on the internet insisting that they know more about business and taxes and the economy and capitalism than Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Warren Buffet and over a hundred of the smartest, most successful business people in America today.
... just like you.
austrologiJan 26, 2012
I don't pretend to know more about business than they do, but I do have a degree in finance accounting and econ minor, so I do generally "Get it". I also understand that inherently these individuals motives aren't neccessarily altruistic. That they already "got theirs" and part of their motivation is to just keep out the competition.
Don't mistake my disdain as not believing certain reforms are needed, they are. But "write a check" isn't a knee jerk reaction, its a carefully thought out viewpoint that specific causes should be privately funded and not government funded. That the "rich" already pay dispropionately more than the "common man", with the bottom 50% paying 2.25% of the taxes and the top 1% paying 30%.... Really, there isn't much to cry about.
It'd be nice if the "poor" actually had to kick in for all the s**t they protest for and demand.
intrepiddesignJan 26, 2012
The bottom 50% pay that much of the tax pie because they make s**t for money, not because they are somehow cheating the system.
austrologiJan 26, 2012
So if I throw a party, buy the beer, and bring the entertainment, really are you in a position to bitch about wanting bud light over miller lite?
Isn't that was OWS, a bunch of people not contributing bitching about the host of the party?
spectecjrJan 28, 2012
You appear to not understand the actual issue at hand here. The issue isn't that the rich aren't paying enough and are evil for not giving enough handouts - it's that they've stuck their thumbs on the scales, tilting them in their favor.
They climbed the rope ladder up the side of the building, and then pulled the ladder up after them.
THAT's the problem. The US is now run by the rich, for the rich. Last time I checked, the US Consitution was pretty specific about that NOT being the idea behind the country.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Government taxation is not the same as your individual decision to write a check. We as a society decide on our values (as enacted through our representatives in taxation). I for one believe in at least a modicum of a Social Safety net (part of being a civilized society). Note I said a 'modicum'. Then again, I don't believe it's all about Me. As for Gates, he believes the Tax system itself is 'off'. Therefore, he makes a case for change. That has nothing to do with an 'individual' writing a check.
austrologiJan 26, 2012
We as individuals decide our values, the government is supposed to protect us from others inflicting their values on us. At least it was supposed to until the Huey Lewis's of the the country felt it was acceptable to plunder other peoples bank accounts.
The perception is supposed to be that he is going against his own self interest..thus the populist reaction but he should add his impact or make arguments as to why his taxes should go up.
“Even as the economy improves and you end the wars, you’re going to have to raise taxes and certainly, whatever form it takes, and I’m not an expert on this -- the rich should bear a larger increase than the rest,”
So the change from the status quo is just Gate's liberal heartfelt worldviewpoint, its not because of some special loophole (of which I would listen). If every already rich liberal got to dictate tax policy there would be no "new money", just "old money" insulated by government by the existing liberals.
I am not rich, I may never be rich, although I would like to be. Taxing the rich now and lowering my taxes would benefit me, but no one sticks me in the gallery of the state of the union address and uses me as a prop. He has the right to say he should pay more taxes just like I have the right to say... make a flat tax.... and if he wants to pay more than that he should "write a check"
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
I'm not going to be able to completely object to your points. I too favor a 'flat tax' with consideration for the bottom rungs of income. This much argument over taxation takes us down a 'counter productive' path. To improve more people's lives, we need our focus on better jobs, innovation, and production of the next generation of goods. I do have a problem with the ever widening income gap. And, I don't support simply 'cutting taxes for the wealthy. But, taxation is not the place to address the widening income gap.
However, with your perspective, would you call for the 'ending' of all Social safety nets?
austrologiJan 26, 2012
I'd give to charity more if I wasn't getting taxed off my ass all of the time, however I mean I still just wrote a check recently... Many people consider taxes their "charity" because so much of it goes to wealth redistribution.
Yes, I am for elimination of social safety nets as a moral imperative of liberty, this does not however mean I think children should starve, just that the private sector would properly address their concerns with the proper incentives in place to keep the level of burden at a managable level as opposed to our bureaucratic abused system today.
199807208Jan 26, 2012
why should Bill Gates have the right to impose his views on me?
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Bill Gates has the right to express his opinions just like everyone else. Now, large special interests however do impose their views on you every day.
199807208Jan 26, 2012
of course he can express his opinions, but why should Bill Gates be able to force his beliefs on me through laws and taxes?
JustSayNoPartyJan 25, 2012
What? Another Rich person thinks he doesn't pay enough taxes? Don't these people know if we just let them keep most of their money, the jobs will come rolling out? Well, at least that's what we tell the 'little people'. He even said taxes would have to be raised to address debt. Blasphemy. Seriously though, the whole tax system needs to be revised towards perhaps a form of a flat tax (consideration given to those making below a certain amount). And yes, government needs to be leaner and more focused. Continued conversation over taxation misses the real point of stimulating new industries and new growth which I believe can be done more effectively than simple 'tax breaks'.
manicdvlnJan 26, 2012
What I find funny is that all these rich guys being so noble saying they want to pay more, yet none of them are going to congress or pushing this with their army of lobbyists.
countess666Jan 26, 2012
20 of them went last month.
sab0tageJan 26, 2012
As another commenter above mentioned, about 20 of them testified before congress and asked for their taxes to be raised.
manicdvlnJan 26, 2012
Meh, nothing but a marketing gimmick. 20 of the richest people couldn't persuade those money whores? Even president speaks to congress, changes nothing. I want to know whats going on behind the curtains.
Maybe what they should do is whatever money they saved on tax loopholes they should create a lobby group to push this "noble" agenda. Then I will believe them.
Just saying i should pay more taxes and still hide/shelter your money isn't going to cut it.
Do something or shut up.
lsloboJan 26, 2012
"Do something or shut up."
Bill Gates, along with Warren Buffett, have convinced over a dozen people to donate more than half their wealth to charities.
He's been pushing Congress and others to rationalize the tax code to root out loopholes and raise the tax rate to pre-Bush levels(which aren't draconian to begin with).
He's spending the rest of his useful adult life fighting malaria, HIV and funding energy initiatives to improve world health and ensure a secure energy future.
You on the other hand are spewing your ignorance for everyone to see.
Perhaps you should do something or shut up.
sab0tageJan 27, 2012
Lobbying would seem to be the main problem with American politics, besides, I think you would be hard pressed to find a firm that would actively work against the rest of their clients.
tiffdajerkJan 26, 2012
thank you Jesus! :)
chriskissel10Jan 26, 2012
"Tax the s**t out of me." - Bill Gates
tobystwitsJan 25, 2012
Dah! 'Greed is Good' has obviously not worked out very well has it?!
wmelnickJan 25, 2012
But we have not been seeing "Greed is good" fail, we have been seeing "Robin Hood" fail.
stabsteerJan 26, 2012
Yeah I dont think so. 'Greed is good' is exactly why we are where we are. The poor and middle class didn't get us into this problem, the filthy rich did.
199807208Jan 26, 2012
no, the government did
stabsteerJan 26, 2012
Bought and paid for by the filthy rich...
199807208Jan 26, 2012
but if the government didn't have the power to hand out favors then the rich wouldn't be able to buy influence
stabsteerJan 26, 2012
...If the government didn't have power? The government represents the people and runs the entire country.
I don't understand your position. Are you Libertarian I guess?
If we take away the power of the government to protect and provide liberty for Americans then the corporations will completely own us no questions asked.
We need to make fix the government because as it is we are being railroaded by the elite, I completely agree. But that doesn't mean destroy the only regulating body and judicial structure we have.
199807208Feb 3, 2012
I am a Libertarian, and I would much rather the market regulate itself then the government. government regulation leads to corruption and market regulation leads to better products and services
jeworldJan 25, 2012
Buffet and Gates say this, how come you don't see them lobbying Congress?
miklkitJan 25, 2012
Did you not see the delegation of 20 millionaires that testified before Congress asking that their taxes be raised last month?
asfinktersezwutJan 26, 2012
Because you are totally blind to reality.
ridgerunner5Jan 25, 2012
Problem is, them paying more would do NOTHING to alleviate our deficit problem. Last night Obama was talking about taking the money not spent on the war and spending them on other projects. They have no intention of paying down the deficit. They will always find another place to dump the cash.
johnomazzJan 25, 2012
Thats what I was thinking when he was speaking. Why put it in other 'projects' when we can pay down our debt.
JustSayNoPartyJan 25, 2012
I believe the answer is more complicated but I agree with a focus on debt. There needs to be a complete review and streamlining of government as a whole to eliminate unnecessary projects. unnecessary spending, to refocus other projects, and possibly fund more deserving ones. Unfortunately, none of the leading candidates seem up to this task (Ron Paul not being a leading candidate). This is a big part of the reason I support Ron Paul.
How many different 'spy agencies' do we have now? How much overlap? Have they started talking to one another yet?
critikillJan 25, 2012
He said use half of that money towards the debt and half for infrastructure which would create more jobs.
ridgerunner5Jan 25, 2012
Temporary, unskilled jobs. That is not what America needs.
intrepiddesignJan 25, 2012
Unless we spend some time and money on education, that's all Americans will qualify for.
atomheartmotherJan 25, 2012
We throw a s**t-ton of money at education and little of it sticks. Our students do poorly because we've lost our work ethic, and one look at how Asian kids outperform the rest of us confirms it.
mascotsJan 26, 2012
LOL, in comparison to the rest of the spending done by the U.S. government, education is vastly unfunded (but what isn't these days).
atomheartmotherJan 26, 2012
The relevant comparison is what we spend compared to the rest of the world. Many countries spend far less per student and yet turn out better-educated ones. Obviously then, the money's not the problem.
ridgerunner5Jan 26, 2012
A big part of the problem is that the majority of the funding goes to highly paid management staff in all levels of the school system that do little, have a half dozen assistants, and spend most of their time deciding if that kid who brought a plastic knife to school to cut his food should be expelled or not for having a weapon.
critikillJan 25, 2012
temporary is relative. a temporary job is better than no job. that will at least get them a wage which they can use to stimulate the economy, get something on their resume so they can hopefully use that experience to land a more permanent job, and maybe use that to get an education. There is no quick fix, but infrastructure has proven to be one of the best bang for your buck in turning around a country during a recession.
miklkitJan 26, 2012
Those "unskilled" workers were our great grandparents. The built things like bridges, tunnels, roads, and dams.
They built the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
Temporary unskilled jobs is exactly what America needs in the short term. We need unskilled work for those who have no skills, and we need to turn young people into skilled workers.
harleyman77Jan 25, 2012
New drinking game: Every time a Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, etc says they don't pay enough taxes, and are answered on Digg by the consvervadiggers with, "Well, Jimmy, Bill, Mark, you are welcome to voluntarily pay as much as you want..." take a swig. I haven't even scrolled down yet, and I bet I am gonna get wasted!
austrologiJan 25, 2012
If I had to take a drink every time I heard "fair share" .... whatever "that" means
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
Well, do you like Reagen? His top marginal tax rate was 50%. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for us.
austrologiJan 26, 2012
I don't pray at the alter of Reagan, this isn't an argument.
amaoicanFeb 4, 2012
Well, Republicans always want to cut taxes. Lower taxes, good; higher taxes, bad. Then they get in office and cut taxes, and when the people toss them out on their asses they say they need back in because they didn't lower taxes enough. The Republicans had their chance to define 'fair share' - they don't know what a fair share is.
(Not saying Dems necessarily do know, but since the Republicans have tried and failed twice in a row to set fair tax rates - they enacted the original Bush tax cuts, then decided that wasn't good enough and cut taxes further a few years later, then decided that still wasn't good enough and proposed the McCain tax cuts - it's time we let a Dem take a whack at it.)
bbbloggingJan 30, 2012
STFU, PR Stunt, If he was paying MORE, he would be looking for tax shelters, Actually does Bill Gates NOT have a tax shelter In the East? Hmmmm and he says... He does not pay enough taxes. This is a Joke!
freeformjazzJan 26, 2012
Scrap the tax code as it stands and start over.
Also he is more than welcome to send a check to the federal government if he feels he doesnt contribute enough.
jalijeniJan 25, 2012
+1
StonnaJan 25, 2012
We know Bill, we know...
nmw6Jan 25, 2012
"Just another left-wing pot smoking hippie who needs to get a job."
-Future comment by fox news pundit-
atomheartmotherJan 25, 2012
Fox reporters are seldom that redundant.
isenborgJan 26, 2012
Here you go Bill. Stop talking and start paying.
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454
Thank you for your insincerity.
p.s. How many tax lawyers do you employ?
mcfriendlyJan 25, 2012
Taxing is not the way out of a deficit but having the RICH pay their equal share of taxes would REDUCE the belief that our government is bought and paid for by the rich and their Corporate and Congressional henchmen. Note - that practice will sadly never end as long as people can approach our government representatives with bags of gold.
solboldiJan 25, 2012
Taxing is not the way out of a deficit though. This approach does not solve what caused the deficit in the first place which is the federal gov't's inability to manage money properly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 25, 2012
Exactly. And why any citizen would advocate that his/her fellow citizens pay more in taxes when our government has shown itself to be such a poor steward of what they take in already is beyond me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
solboldiJan 25, 2012
I used to work for the gov't and they wasted ginormous amounts of money on projects that typically accomplished nothing. The gov't workers I worked with were the most injudicious, out of touch adults I have ever witnessed in my entire career.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 25, 2012
Congratulations on your escape and the restoration of your dignity.
miklkitJan 25, 2012
Are you talking about these people?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE
alienmushroomJan 25, 2012
This gov't is so wasteful that no amount of tax will be enough to cover its costs.
Im_High_TechJan 26, 2012
Bill Gates: Like a BOSS!
nish20Jan 26, 2012
Is there a reason they don't just pay extra? I don't think the IRS would turn away their money. I don't understand why mandating rich people give their money away is a good idea. If the government was doing this already, perhaps there wouldn't be a Gates Foundation, which has arguably done more good than any government program like it.
Dazza_TucieJan 25, 2012
Think Al Capone said the same thing once
norman619Jan 25, 2012
Wealthy Americans can be taxed at 100% and it wouldn't fix anything. We can completely stop spending anything on military and we'd STILL be screwed. People refuse to admit the ugly truth. Our problem is not a tax revenue issue. It's a spending issue. The biggest reason we are in such insane debt is 3 entitlement programs. Three programs which are underfunded AND are growing faster than our economy is. They are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These three programs have become fiscal cancers what MUST be dealt with first before we look at doing anything else. It's also wrong that nearly 50% of WORKING Americans are paying zero income tax AND they are being given extra money when they file.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fucterJan 25, 2012
They arent fiscal disasters, and the 50% not paying taxes are either poor, or old. Lets have some humanity and take care of the poor and elderly. Let's also strive to get people into good jobs, by getting better teachers and starting infrastructure projects. The war cost way more than SS and medicare/aid.
CrashingDownJan 25, 2012
oh horses**t fuctard, where is the incentive to do anything productive if i can sit on my ass and let the gubment take care of me
mcfriendlyJan 25, 2012
Don't worry, no one wants to take care of you....
CrashingDownJan 25, 2012
I don't want anyone to take care of me. I'm pretty content taking care of myself
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
Yea, why would I work when I can't afford a car, have little food, and live in a run down house? Why would I not want to be poor? It's so much fun living in neighborhoods where I might get shot by a crackdealer. Why is it that you conservatives preach that we are responsible enough not to need regulate anything but somehow if people weren't allowed to become homeless, sick, or dying then we would just all live a lesser quality of life because we don't have to work for it.
markglJan 25, 2012
Let's all live in lala land. Wake up!
mikelistJan 25, 2012
eithr/or isn't going to fix the problem, an element of both is necessary.
asfinktersezwutJan 26, 2012
The only rational answer
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
The problem isn't this truth. The problem is you want to do nothing about it. You don't want to reform healthcare so that our costs can get to those of other countries who pay half as much. The problem is you think fixing the problem is to stop caring for our old and sick which doesn't fix anything. We stop paying for the elderly care than the elderly still need care but now noone is paying for it or at best their middle-class families pay for it further strangling our economy. Get a plan. Reform healthcare so we don't pay twice as much as every other civilized nation. You want to tax the poorer Americans? Is this a solution? What does this fix? I'm serious explain it? Is it just because you want to point out that a family making less than $26,000 can't survive in America with less? or is your argument that we shouldn't help people til they are homeless or dying? This is why it costs us so much today. Tell me a real plan.
asfinktersezwutJan 26, 2012
Norman, you seem like a really intelligent guy here, so I find it hard to understand why is it that you cannot see that neither tax increase or spending cuts alone is enough to stop the hemorrhaging at this point? Clearly spending cuts need to happen - Warren talks about this in interviews all the time, but it isn't enough and the system is out of whack.
Now, before you go spouting the standard refrain that I'm a parasite parasite and want redistribution and lalala... you should know that I don't begrudge people making money and being successful - I make 95% of my earnings in Capital Gains, more than 50% of that is from international sources. I own companies in several countries and homes in 3 - Romney's taxes look just fine to me. I travel the world regularly,speak 5 languages and have a great life, but I used to live in my car and I was on welfare in the 80's so I know both sides of this equation.
I've broken through that barrier from earned income to investment income and from my personal experience let me tell you it is a bitch. The system is totally rigged against hard-working honest Americans who earn a "wage" rather than "dividends". My taxes went from 30+% to less than 10% in one year while my "income" nearly tripled! Really, all I'm saying is that along with spending cuts, the tax rates need to be evened out. Only by reforming both are we going to be able to tackle the deficit problem.
countess666Jan 26, 2012
"Wealthy Americans can be taxed at 100% and it wouldn't fix anything."
last i checked, that would cut the deficit in half. and that's just their NORMAL wages(and some of them don't even have any of those), not capital-gains ect.
"It's also wrong that nearly 50% of WORKING Americans are paying zero income tax AND they are being given extra money when they file."
they don't pay FEDERAL income taxes. they pay loads of other types of taxes, both federal and state.
and considering that these are the bottom 50%, i don't see what's wrong with them getting extra support when needed.
"They are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These three programs have become fiscal cancers what MUST be dealt with first before we look at doing anything else."
social security Medicare and medicaid can wait until after the recession. their problems aren't acute.
they need some adjustments true, but they'll hold a few years.
norman619Jan 25, 2012
Oh Bill... You have paid far more than your fair share. You have done far more good with yoru own money than our government ever could.
sloppyjoes7Jan 25, 2012
Why "taxes?"
Why do these people think GOVERNMENT is the only answer to problems?
apokalyps2547Jan 25, 2012
He didn't say that. Gates is talking about the DEFICIT (which, surprise! requires money to solve, in addition to fiscal discipline)
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
The deficit is caused by government spending. Without the excessive government spending, there would be no deficit. Therefore, you have three choices:
1) Support cuts in spending.
2) Support tax increases.
3) Support both.
Since Gates is talking about increased taxes, he apparently doesn't view the problem as government spending.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
asfinktersezwutJan 26, 2012
3) Both
Apparently you haven't seen any of the interviews with Gates or Buffet where they explicitly talk about the need to cut spending AND balance out the tax burden.
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
Buffet doesn't want cut spending. Who are you kidding?
But to any rational person who has looked at the numbers, spending is so excessive, massive cuts are required. This is what needs to be focused on - not tax increases.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nmw6Jan 26, 2012
actually US gov't spending is lower than in many other industrialized countries. What numbers are you looking at? And what should be cut?
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
Federal budget numbers and deficit spending. The current deficit is equal to the GDP, and is doubled if you include debts not owed to the public.
countess666Jan 26, 2012
"The current deficit is equal to the GDP"
you utter utter tool.
DEBT is equal to GDP. The deficit is FAR less, a factor of 10 less in fact.
large, true, but clearly not equal to the GDP.
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
countess, you're right, I typed "deficit" instead of "debt."
asfinktersezwutJan 26, 2012
You have to watch or read the whole interview - not just the edited fox snippets or talking points.
Warren frequently talks about the need for spending to come down and the deficit has to be payed down along with the tax reforms they are pushing.
hers's just one randomly picked with the transcript below it
http://www.valuewalk.com/2011/11/warren-buffett-increase-taxes-cut-spending/#.TyCsr6VSTTo
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
Cutting spending = Cutting jobs
This seems like a really bad time to do that.
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
There's NO MONEY to pay for those jobs. Therefore, they shouldn't exist.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
Riiight. Let's see, the 2012 federal budget is $1.1 trillion and the average federal employee (according to Rand Paul, one of yours) is $120k. That means we'd have to cut 9.2 million jobs. That would practically double the unemployment rate - there are currently 13 million unemployed.
Brilliant!
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
Yes. we need to cut that many federal jobs. Jobs that shouldn't even exist in the first place.
amaoicanJan 28, 2012
f**k you.
stabsteerJan 28, 2012
Jesus you people are clueless. the stupidity of right wingers never ends...
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
They don't. The problem isn't that corporations or charity can't do good things. It's that we currently support these ideas and they don't do enough. Yes it helps to build infrastructure and correct social problems like the overwhelming costs of healthcare in this country. They can donate all day to the Kidney Foundation but if Johnny NoKidney has to pay 3 times as much for medication and medical care then elsewhere in the world, he is fighting a losing battle. Government can be corrupt. Business can be corrupt. People can be corrupt. The problem isn't this truth but the fact that you think we should do nothing because of it. The solution can only be found if we work towards a solution. If every good idea is suddenly bad because it's made by politicians (or people) then how can we ever win?
miklkitJan 25, 2012
Good point on health care. America and Mexico have the only for profit health care around and we pay twice as much as the civilized world does.
http://www.businesspundit.com/us-healthcare-vs-the-rest-of-the-world/
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
We subsidize everyone else. That's a major reason for our healthcare costs.
ncmusicJan 27, 2012
So why are we subsidizing them? Do you mean in the form of medical research where US patients pay more for the same care/drugs thus providing the bulk of the global profit on the same treatments?
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
Yes. The profit from drugs and medical research generally comes from American customers.
In many other countries, pharmaceutical companies sell drugs at a loss, in an effort to maintain their patents.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
Using the government is the worst and most inefficient way of solving any of those problems.
countess666Jan 26, 2012
how is government healthcare a bad way to fix the problem?
Medicaid pays out 97% of what it gets out to actual healthcare.
compared to private insurers some of which have a very hard time adhering to the new rules that requires that percentage to be just 80%.
1 in 5 dollars you pay them going to healthcare... that's a lot of extra money! and they can't even achieve that!
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
Doctors tend to LOSE MONEY by taking Medicaid patients. They do it anyway, sometimes.
Now expand that, and you destroy healthcare, or massively increase Medicaid spending by several times.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Jan 26, 2012
completely different issue. that has no effect on the percentage they pay out to healthcare vs other costs.
norman619Jan 25, 2012
Government is the cause of this problem.
booglefloopJan 25, 2012
incorrect. Coprorations are the cause. It is their lobbying and dirty money that corrupt politicians. I believe most politicians go into politics with ideals.
norman619Jan 25, 2012
What bulls**t. Once CONGRESS learned it could FINANCE the spending they wanted to do but knew we couldn't afford it was over. THAT was when we started on the road to the mess we have now.
People like you are also to blame for this mess. You actually choose to ignore reality and go along with the lies and finger pointing out politicians do. Fact is Congress has been spending FAR MORE than we could afford to for decades.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
booglefloopJan 25, 2012
First of all, the fact that you are dugg down below zero should show you that you are on the wrong side of the issue.
Second of all, you are now saying I am the cause of the problem? Gee that's pretty hillarious. Actually, no it isn't. It is completely retarded and shows that your thinking is off the beam. I bet you blame your mailman for the current economic problems if your mail isnt on time.
I pay all my taxes, I vote responsibly and protest when it is needed. How did I cause this problem? I have my own business and I employ people. Is that what I am doing wrong?
I know you think that those poor corporations who are so abused are the ones that need to be given an even break, but considering that they PAY people to inject laws into society should tell you they are corrupt. That ISNT their business to be doing.
Lobbying should be illegal. You will see politicians straighten up immediately after that.
Ouzel7Jan 25, 2012
"First of all, the fact that you are dugg down below zero should show you that you are on the wrong side of the issue."
No ... it reflects conservatives v liberals on Digg.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ultimisJan 26, 2012
"First of all, the fact that you are dugg down below zero should show you that you are on the wrong side of the issue."
Welcome to digg. The liberals significantly out number the conservatives.
miklkitJan 25, 2012
Science has a liberal bias.
stabsteerJan 28, 2012
As it should. Since science goes along with intelligence...
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
What a fairy tale you spin. We spend too much but that would somehow be aided by continuing to spend too much while simultaneously watching our people lose their homes, become sicker, and die. It's not that I can't agree that waste exists, its that you point fingers at things that work and suggest if I get rid of them then people would not be harmed and its false. I want a real plan even if it is presented by a conservative. Problem is no conservative so far has shown any plan other than the ones that move companies overseas and harm the middle-class.
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
"It is their lobbying and dirty money that corrupt politicians."
Right. Blame the corporations. By the way, unions, charities, and other interest groups are huge lobbyists. Why'd you leave them out?
tribbledotJan 26, 2012
because they are groups of people with a common cause. A corporation doesn't have to listen to its members. I do think we should place limits here as well but they are different. They vote as a group on things and they share common goals as a group of people. It's not rocket science unless you are a conservative.
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
Corporations are groups of people with a common cause. That's literally exactly what they are.
bcarl314Jan 27, 2012
@sloppy - we might be getting somewhere with that last reply.
You're right. Corporations are groups of people with a common cause - and only one cause too - to make more money.
One the other hand, unions, charities and other interest groups aren't interested in making money. They're interested in a common cause OTHER than money.
Where a corporation always asks "do we make money", a union will ask "does this improve working conditions" and a charity will ask "does this improve humanity".
THAT is the fundamental difference that you are not seeing. Money isn't everything - period.
countess666Jan 26, 2012
you are aware that, unlike unions and charities, corporations actually WANT laws to be convoluted and strange. that way they'll have loopholes to exploited and it will be harder to figure out what they are actually doing.
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
No, because corporations have to pay the costs of compliance.
countess666Jan 26, 2012
"No, because corporations have to pay the costs of compliance."
no they don't. they reap the benefits of nobody but a few actually understanding what compliance is.
case in point, the 40 biggest US companies spend more on lobbyist then they do taxes!
the convoluted tax laws those lobbyist bought keeps their effective taxes low while the right can still scream about the US having the highest corporate taxes in the world.
and its working, its taken 30 years for us to catch on to what they are doing.
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
They absolutely pay tons of money to figure out how much to pay in taxes.
The solution is to get rid of corporate income taxes, and replace it with a higher personal income tax rate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicJan 27, 2012
Or just simplify the the tax code, the rates are the only easy part of the tax code, everything else is figuring out how much is taxable.
Which is true for both corporate and personal income taxes.
tribbledotJan 26, 2012
Corporations are for-profit businesses with a few at the top that utilize the many at the bottom to turn their profits with no actual consideration of their opinions politically. Once again I don't think the system should be rigged for anyone but this ignorance of yours to the differences between these groups is unfathomable. You can't actually believe what you are saying.
sloppyjoes7Jan 26, 2012
The people in control are voted in.
Votes matter.
tribbledotJan 27, 2012
voted in by other rich ceos not by the people. Typical conservative confusing the two.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
Rich CEOs, (unless they own all the stock), cannot vote in CEOs.
That's like saying "Obama is President because he voted for himself."
tribbledotJan 27, 2012
Nope not the same CEO but the other CEO on the board who votes in his friend who will later vote for his pay increase, you don't understand the system and should probably read more books.
treknorJan 26, 2012
Indeed.
treknorJan 26, 2012
Indeed.
BarterForceJan 26, 2012
Bill Gates is an absolute legend!
greenmagnateJan 26, 2012
Seriously!
uaguilarJan 26, 2012
When you are so rich like Gates... and even after you grt taxed like crazy.. and you still have a lot of money.. its very easy for him to say he doesnt get taxed enough. Like Buffet.. he says the same.. hr gives his money away... he doesnt care about money it seems. But not all millionaires feel the same.. they dont want to gi e the government any more than they have to.. and why should they?itz stupid.. tbis whole debate only goes on because of ignorance
. If there were no income taxes wed all be on the same "level"... no more debate
tribbledotJan 27, 2012
The problem is the more than they should. Some are making millions and paying less than 15% is this what they should pay when I pay more for working for a living?
uaguilarFeb 4, 2012
The situation is messed up no doubt. But let me put it like this to you.. Gingrich announced he paid like 1 mil in taxes..... and he earned about 3 mil during that tax year. 1 million in taxes dude.. are you kidding me? that makes up for like a lot of regular folks like us. Bottom line is.. we shouldn't be having this debate at all. The income tax isn't even constituional. Ron Paul
tribbledotFeb 4, 2012
He was taxed at a normal rate. The same rate that a family making $220,000 might pay. He gets to keep 2 million dollars while they get to keep much less. He doesn't suffer any more hardship then that family and should not be entitled to special protections just because he makes considerably more. I'm also not asking for his rate to be raised to such a level that he would actually be lowered into their pay bracket. He would still be getting at least a million point five over those relatively well off people. A person with 3 million taxed at a hypothetical 40%, which is much higher than any proposed increase considered, gets to keep 1.8 million dollars. Put this in perspective, he gets more than 8 times the income pretax of that family making $220,000 or 12 times their income after their taxes have been removed. He would not suffer any horrible sacrifice for me raising his tax burden by a small amount relative to his monstrous stream of cash that he gets to keep. He isn't Mitt though who made much more and got taxed less than a manager at McDonalds, let alone this hypothetical well-to-do family of doctors and lawyers listed above.
You could believe the Ron Paul line that income tax is unconstitutional but it's foolish to believe we don't need fairness in any future tax code that would fund our military, care for our people, build our roads, or aid our businesses in times of trouble. You might omit two of those like Paul would actually do but you are still talking about a large burden added to our debt as even more people die in hospitals that will never be paid and businesses fold under the stress of economic realities that have less to do with them and more to do with the way we strangle consumers to supposedly protect the people who would benefit most from a healthy economy including the aforementioned business.
It's a bad system now. I think it'd be worse under Paul but I really don't need to argue that because he'll never get the nomination so we can agree to disagree on his policies. We do need to fix this system though.
uaguilarFeb 4, 2012
You wrote a lot to respond to my post.. at the end of the day we both agree that the system needs to be fixed. Remember tho.. this whole thing started with Gates.. someone that has a business and makes 1 mil is not going to agree with the same thing as Gates who is a multi-billionaire.
Ron Paul would be the best candidate to start to fix this problem. Everyone else just perpetuates the problems
tribbledotFeb 4, 2012
Ron Paul is ineffective as a politician and I sincerely doubt he'd be able to bring our legislature together if he was ever made President. I don't mean this as the insult that it sounds like it's a real examination of his legislative track record.
I don't know what all the millionaires would think of this but the reality is I'm not using that as a measure of what would be good for this country and I doubt Bill, Warren, or Obama are either. The reality is we need a balanced approach and this will still include more money and we can hasten our downfall by requiring it from the struggling consumer classes or we can increase the tax slightly on those who benefit most from our economy and even moreso if that economy is healthy.
tribbledotFeb 4, 2012
I also want to address the issue in case you meant that he pays too much compared to us because you think he spins string into diamond encrusted platinum bars but he like most millionaire and billionaires makes his money off the back of workers, the government roads, or the government set up for people like him where he can be a historical consultant for a company at a rate of at least $30,000 a month. He doesn't pay too much. He should be more liable considering how money is made in the real world in fact. This is what would be fair.
fgerardJan 26, 2012
Machines of War: Blackwater, Monsanto, and Bill Gates
http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/14-10-2010/115363-machines_of_war_blackwater_monsanto_billgates-0/
http://www.thenation.com/article/154739/blackwaters-black-ops
http://youtu.be/nqM4tKPDlR8
fgerardJan 26, 2012
oh and Mr Gates, please explain your financial dealings with biotech profiteer and ecocidal menace, Monsanto. i think the world deserves an explanation... and don't feed us Monsanto's bovine scatology about 'feeding the world', because the rest of us KNOW that is a LIE.
fgerardJan 26, 2012
and speaking of...
'Doomsday Seed Vault' in the Arctic
http://www.voltairenet.org/article162545.html
"... when Gates, Rockefeller and Agribusiness get together on a project, it is prudent to take notice. If past deeds are any indicator, those who have taken it upon themselves to locate and store seeds in this secure facility are not benevolent servants of humanity, nor the preservers of life."
fgerardJan 26, 2012
huh? you're just figuring that out NOW, ya greedy f**k? not only do you not contribute your fair share in taxes, Mr Gates - you are a financial parasite!
satori3000Jan 26, 2012
So wouldn't it be smarter for him to arrange to pay workers in the US what they're worth to make the 360 rather than foxconn instead of paying more taxes? well... I'm not against him paying more taxes, but for effs sakes.... he should try and get MS off the chinese teet even if it means him off setting the costs himself.
veganpaJan 26, 2012
Class warfare!!
k31th3rJan 26, 2012
Well he should go ahead and pay the people with his tax money directly so we can pick and choose to spend it on things we support instead of congress spending it on things we don't.
I, for example, would use it to bring back Moonboots. You know those huge goofy shoes with thick rubber bands on them that are impossible to walk in and impossible not to look stupid while jumping in?
I bet that's still a better use than what congress would come up with for the extra income.