Patriotic Millionaires decend on Washington demanding to pay more taxes

[dmcowen674]

How many AT Millionaires were at this event?

I suspect none.

They got the standard reply as given on here that there is nothing stopping from sending the Government as much money as they want.

Simply proves that the rich don't trickle down anything other than shit.

They are asking to be forced to pay more, they just can't do it by themselves.

11-16-2011

http://news.yahoo.com/millionaires-capitol-hill-please-tax-more-222330131.html

Millionaires on Capitol Hill: Please tax me more!



Lobbyists for a day, a band of millionaires stormed Capitol Hill on Wednesday to urge Congress to tax them more.

But once inside, their message was embraced by liberals and tolerated by some conservatives — including the ideological leader of anti-tax lawmakers, who had some advice for them, too.


"If you think the federal government can spend your money better than you can, then by all means" pay more in taxes than you owe, said Grover Norquist, the head of a group that has gotten almost all congressional Republicans to pledge to vote against tax hikes.



The IRS should have a little line on the form where people can donate money to the government, he suggested, "just like the tip line on a restaurant receipt."

At a basement entrance to the Capitol, a police officer pointed to the name badges that identified each wearer as "Patriotic Millionaire."

Off they trudged, a group mostly of men in business-casual clothing toting laptops and umbrellas, to a desk visited by tourists and lobbyists. Badges secured, they headed in.


Lawrence Benenson, vice president of Benenson Capitol Co., ran into freshman Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., in an elevator.


"I'm with the Patriotic Millionaires and we want to pay more in taxes," he told her.


Noem grinned.
"How much more?" she asked.

A meeting with an aide to Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., opened with his aide announcing that the senator believes the wealthy pay more taxes than their fair share, according to one of the millionaires, Matthew Palevsky, a consultant and founder of the Council on Crime Prevention.


"We defined it as not paying our fair share," Palevsky said of the 20-minute chat. "It was clear we were coming from different points of view."

 

[monovillage]

Also from the story:

"It's a media hook," offered another, Guy Saperstein, a retired lawyer and former president of the Sierra Club Foundation.

"Nobody's holding them back" from donating money to the federal government, he said as he prepared for the group's arrival. "They're saying, 'Gee, I'd sure like to write a big check to the federal government, if someone would just stop stopping me.'"

Big surprise that Cowen got hooked again.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Also from the story:

"It's a media hook," offered another, Guy Saperstein, a retired lawyer and former president of the Sierra Club Foundation.

"Nobody's holding them back" from donating money to the federal government, he said as he prepared for the group's arrival. "They're saying, 'Gee, I'd sure like to write a big check to the federal government, if someone would just stop stopping me.'"

Big surprise that Cowen got hooked again.

They were saying a lot more than that... But those on the right would need to be intelectually honest to see that. First check their comments as it related to being job creators. Then check the comments as it relates to marginal tax rates and their own decisions on investment etc...

 

[dank69]

...
They got the standard reply as given on here that there is nothing stopping from sending the Government as much money as they want.
...

...
"Nobody's holding them back" from donating money to the federal government, he said as he prepared for the group's arrival. "They're saying, 'Gee, I'd sure like to write a big check to the federal government, if someone would just stop stopping me.'"
...

It's funny how conservatives can't spot the terrible logic with these statements. Not only are they too stupid to spot the terrible logic, they get all uppity thinking they are pointing out hypocrisy. No better combination than arrogant ignorance.

 

[monovillage]

............No better combination than arrogant ignorance.

I would bow to your expertise on the subject

 

[Nebor]

It's funny how conservatives can't spot the terrible logic with these statements. Not only are they too stupid to spot the terrible logic, they get all uppity thinking they are pointing out hypocrisy. No better combination than arrogant ignorance.

Explain to me the terrible logic involved in why these people can't give their money to the federal government if they want to. Is it because only a handful of people giving their money to the government won't make a difference? Then I would posit that the vast majority of millionaires don't want to be taxed more since they're not lined up with these "Patriotic Millionaires," and thus these people aren't representative of anything greater than themselves.

 

[dank69]

Explain to me the terrible logic involved in why these people can't give their money to the federal government if they want to. Is it because only a handful of people giving their money to the government won't make a difference? Then I would posit that the vast majority of millionaires don't want to be taxed more since they're not lined up with these "Patriotic Millionaires," and thus these people aren't representative of anything greater than themselves.

Good, one person here can see the terrible logic. Now, can you tell me why your final statement is a totally separate issue?

 

[Nebor]

Good, one person here can see the terrible logic. Now, can you tell me why your final statement is a totally separate issue?

Can you tell me why some of the millionaires' opinions are important but the majority of millionaires' opinions are not?

 

[spidey07]

If they want to pay more, they are free to donate. Put your money where your mouth is guys, not force others to give more of their money because you want them to.

This is the prime difference between conservatives and liberals

conservative = ok, pay more if you want, but the individual is what's most important as is the fruits of their labor
liberal = we will take by rule of law because we said so and know what's best for you

 

[jruchko]

Can you tell me why some of the millionaires' opinions are important but the majority of millionaires' opinions are not?

Except polls have showed that the majority of millionaires want taxes increased for people making over $1,000,000.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Can you tell me why some of the millionaires' opinions are important but the majority of millionaires' opinions are not?

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/

A new survey from Spectrem Group found that 68% of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more)* support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income. Fully 61% of those with net worths of $5 million or more support the tax on million-plus earners.

You were saying?

 

[spidey07]

Except polls have showed that the majority of millionaires want taxes increased for people making over $1,000,000.

The majority of millionaires likely don't make more than 1M/yr.

The majority of people want taxes raised for people that make more than them.

 

[PeshakJang]

The soup kitchen downtown is shutting down if they don't get enough money raised in the next month or so. I'd donate, if only the government would force me to. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[PeshakJang]

Also probably doesn't help their cause that the biggest billionaire of them all, and the "movement's" most influential spokesperson (Buffett) is in arrears himself.

He'd love to pay more in taxes, if only the government did more to make sure he couldn't not pay the taxes he is so easily skipping out on!

 

[shira]

Explain to me the terrible logic involved in why these people can't give their money to the federal government if they want to. Is it because only a handful of people giving their money to the government won't make a difference? Then I would posit that the vast majority of millionaires don't want to be taxed more since they're not lined up with these "Patriotic Millionaires," and thus these people aren't representative of anything greater than themselves.

It's not hypocritical to advocate for a change in a law or regulation, but not voluntarily subject oneself to the advocated change before the change goes into effect. In fact, it would be stupid to do so because it would place the advocate at a competitive disadvantage with those who do not voluntarily subject themselves to the change.

Consider the situation that existed when body-length swimsuits were legal to use in competition (pre-2010). It became clear to everyone that these swimsuits (such as the Speedo LZR Racer) gave a huge speed advantage to those who had access to and the means to afford the very latest technology, and rendered swimming records set prior to the advent of these suits obsolete. Many, many swimmers and coaches advocated that these suits be banned. But until the suits were officially outlawed - effective 2010 - it would have been career suicide for a swimmer to NOT use these suits.

Or consider minimum wage laws: Suppose a fast-food company is a strong advocate of a significant increase in the minimum wage, but that increase is not yet a legal requirement. It would be financial suicide for that fast-food company to voluntarily pay its employees the higher wage while its competitors were still paying their own employes the lower wage.

Or consider campaign finance: It would be insane for a candidate to NOT take advantage of every legal means of raising money to further his own candidacy, even if that candidate strongly advocates changes in the law that would make many of the currently-legal financing methods illegal.

 

[Craig234]

I'm convinced some right-wingers here, if prisoners in German concentration camps, would criticize the liberators who came to free them, worshiping their captors.

If they were slaves during the civil war, they'd volunteer to fight for the confederacy.

During our revolutionary war, the country was split between those for revolution and those for remaining under England. They'd be the latter.

 

[dank69]

Can you tell me why some of the millionaires' opinions are important but the majority of millionaires' opinions are not?

Why are you changing the subject on me? I only mentioned the shit logic of a single shit statement, which you clearly already understand yourself.

I wonder, were any of the millionaires smart enough to point out the flawed logic to the senator? Either they weren't, or this Laurie Kellman didn't bother reporting that part.

 

[halik]

Explain to me the terrible logic involved in why these people can't give their money to the federal government if they want to. Is it because only a handful of people giving their money to the government won't make a difference? Then I would posit that the vast majority of millionaires don't want to be taxed more since they're not lined up with these "Patriotic Millionaires," and thus these people aren't representative of anything greater than themselves.

Individual's best action != best policy

Everyone wants to minimize the amount of taxes they have to pay, but it's a bad policy to minimize the tax burden on everyone.

 

[LegendKiller]

What's ironic is that we exalt these people as smart, intelligent and the heart of the job creators, entrepreneurs, and what makes America, America but dismiss them out of hand simply because the minority (32%) thinks they are entitled to ever more.

At least we know who the plutocrats are.

 

[halik]

It's not hypocritical to advocate for a change in a law or regulation, but not voluntarily subject oneself to the advocated change before the change goes into effect. In fact, it would be stupid to do so because it would place the advocate at a competitive disadvantage with those who do not voluntarily subject themselves to the change.

Consider the situation that existed when body-length swimsuits were legal to use in competition (pre-2010). It became clear to everyone that these swimsuits (such as the Speedo LZR Racer) gave a huge speed advantage to those who had access to and the means to afford the very latest technology, and rendered swimming records set prior to the advent of these suits obsolete. Many, many swimmers and coaches advocated that these suits be banned. But until the suits were officially outlawed - effective 2010 - it would have been career suicide for a swimmer to NOT use these suits.

Or consider minimum wage laws: Suppose a fast-food company is a strong advocate of a significant increase in the minimum wage, but that increase is not yet a legal requirement. It would be financial suicide for that fast-food company to voluntarily pay its employees the higher wage while its competitors were still paying their own employes the lower wage.

Or consider campaign finance: It would be insane for a candidate to NOT take advantage of every legal means of raising money to further his own candidacy, even if that candidate strongly advocates changes in the law that would make many of the currently-legal financing methods illegal.

You brought logic and reason to a dogma and fallacy fight.

 

[dank69]

You brought logic and reason to a dogma and fallacy fight.

The saddest part is that the shithead senator got elected in the first place.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's not hypocritical to advocate for a change in a law or regulation, but not voluntarily subject oneself to the advocated change before the change goes into effect. In fact, it would be stupid to do so because it would place the advocate at a competitive disadvantage with those who do not voluntarily subject themselves to the change.

Consider the situation that existed when body-length swimsuits were legal to use in competition (pre-2010). It became clear to everyone that these swimsuits (such as the Speedo LZR Racer) gave a huge speed advantage to those who had access to and the means to afford the very latest technology, and rendered swimming records set prior to the advent of these suits obsolete. Many, many swimmers and coaches advocated that these suits be banned. But until the suits were officially outlawed - effective 2010 - it would have been career suicide for a swimmer to NOT use these suits.

Or consider minimum wage laws: Suppose a fast-food company is a strong advocate of a significant increase in the minimum wage, but that increase is not yet a legal requirement. It would be financial suicide for that fast-food company to voluntarily pay its employees the higher wage while its competitors were still paying their own employes the lower wage.

Or consider campaign finance: It would be insane for a candidate to NOT take advantage of every legal means of raising money to further his own candidacy, even if that candidate strongly advocates changes in the law that would make many of the currently-legal financing methods illegal.

Your entire argument is rendered moot when one realizes that these millionaires could just as easily donate the bulk of their wealth at their death to the Federal government and thus would be spared being at a disadvantage during their lifetimes. So in the end their pleas are still at best disingenuous and pandering to populist sentiments.

However even guys like Warren Buffet know that this would be a stupid move which is why they donate the bulk of their wealth to privately run and incorporated charities with hand picked stewards to managed and administer their donations. Why? Because Warren Buffet realizes that it is more then likely his money would after death if donated to the federal government be wasted and/or misused on causes ("War on **insert governments faux cause**) that he probably does not feel is important or flat out does not support.

 

[dank69]

Your entire argument is rendered moot when one realizes that these millionaires could just as easily donate the bulk of their wealth at their death to the Federal government and thus would be spared being at a disadvantage during their lifetimes. So in the end their pleas are still at best disingenuous and pandering to populist sentiments.

However even guys like Warren Buffet know that this would be a stupid move which is why they donate the bulk of their wealth to privately run and incorporated charities with hand picked stewards to managed and administer their donations. Why? Because Warren Buffet realizes that it is more then likely his money would after death if donated to the federal government be wasted and/or misused on causes ("War on **insert governments faux cause**) that he probably does not feel is important or flat out does not support.

So the fact that a single millionaire donating his entire fortune to the government would do absolutely nothing is still flying over your head? So fucking blind.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So the fact that a single millionaire donating his entire fortune to the government would do absolutely nothing is still flying over your head? So fucking blind.

Blind? I think you need to open your eyes and realize that any tax hike on the millionaires would not solve a damn thing in terms of our budget deficit and government over spending.

 

[Engineer]

How about they take the money and open up a factory or something else instead of wanting more taxes? More taxes by employment is much better than more taxes because of higher rates. Quit shipping the jobs offshore and this wouldn't be as much of a problem. *sigh*