likearock
-
Content
2,274 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by likearock
-
-
Quote[Reply]Dude, he has pledged to give away 99% of his wealth to charities. How much more do you want from the guy?
More to the point, he has consistently said that the rich should be taxed more as he does here.
He is an expert at tailoring his image. When a guy says, "I should be taxed more" everyone thinks, "oh. That Warren is a special kind of man."
Giving away all of his wealth to charities is a great way to ensure the government doesn't take half of it when he dies. It's the new thing - donate it to charities because then it won't go to the government. Then get the tax exemption for the charitable donations and make sure the government doesn't tax that, either.
Buffet knows that the worst place to send his earned dollars is to the government. He'll shelter it and say, "Government isn't getting it. If I can't have it it will go to my second choice."
Buffet is a genius. The Oracle of Omaha. He shelters his taxes and still looks good. Like Al Gore flying a private jet - boy, if he doesn't just say the right things!
Well I suppose if you're going to call into question the character of anyone who says something you disagree with, you can never be wrong.
He says that the rich should pay more in taxes and I take him at his word. Why should he give a shit about his image anyway? I certainly wouldn't if I had his money.
QuoteQuoteQuote
I'd suggest a compromise. Do your 2-4 minutes in the tunnel and just get a feel for stable falling.
Keep in mind that the 2 - 4 minute blocks are priced at around $25/hr compared to the volume blocks that are closer to $10/hr. You wouldn't be saving as much as you think.
what tunnel is $25/hr? I want to go lol.
QuoteQuoteQuote
QuoteThis is all besides the point, which was that a willingness to see the tax rates go up for the rich does not necessarily prevent one from acquiring wealth. Any chance of your sticking to that topic?
Were you planning on ADDRESSING that topic at some point, rather than the charitable contributions?
I thought I did, but I'll do it again so there's no mistaking:
Warren Buffett support raising the tax rates on the rich.
Warren Buffett is a multi-billionaire.
Therefore, supporting tax rates on the rich is not an impediment to acquiring wealth.
Argument to authority, nice. Bogus, but nice.
Nope. Argument to or from authority states:
Quote
1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.
In this case, p = "supporting tax rates on the rich is not an impediment to acquiring wealth". I was not using Warren Buffett as an authority to support p but as an example of p. Very different.
Quote
If you're already a multi-(m)(b)illionaire, it probably won't hurt you because, like Buffett, you'll be diversified enough that most of your money will come from non-income sources - that's why he's able to say that he pays less tax than his secretary, btw.
Okay, here you're on more solid ground. I kind of finessed the fact that his statements in support of raising taxes on the rich did occur after he acquired most of his wealth. My assumption is that people don't usually change their core beliefs that much over their lifetime and Buffett, who wasn't born rich, probably had the same views back then.
Perhaps I'm right, perhaps not. I'd say though that the fact he's willing to give away 99% of his wealth to charity is pretty good evidence that his heart has always been in the right place.
Quote
QuoteThis is all besides the point, which was that a willingness to see the tax rates go up for the rich does not necessarily prevent one from acquiring wealth. Any chance of your sticking to that topic?
Were you planning on ADDRESSING that topic at some point, rather than the charitable contributions?
I thought I did, but I'll do it again so there's no mistaking:
Warren Buffett support raising the tax rates on the rich.
Warren Buffett is a multi-billionaire.
Therefore, supporting tax rates on the rich is not an impediment to acquiring wealth.
Quote
QuoteMore to the point, he has consistently said that the rich should be taxed more as he does here.
So, let him put his money where his mouth is. Claim it as income, no tax sheltering, and pay the full tax on it
And you have some personal knowledge of his misuse of tax shelters? Pray show it.
This is all besides the point, which was that a willingness to see the tax rates go up for the rich does not necessarily prevent one from acquiring wealth. Any chance of your sticking to that topic?
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHonestly, if I was a millionaire I would not care if my taxes went up. Because I would still be a fucking millionaire!
With an attitude like that, you will probably never be a millionaire or if you become one you won't be for long.
Tell that to Warren Buffett. He has that attitude in spades.
How do you figure that? Buffett has his money in tax exempt/deferred shelters and has accountants to make sure he takes the least tax bite possible. Let's see him put his money where his mouth is and take it as income instead of capital gains, without any sheltering - he can start by cutting a check to these folks:
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Dude, he has pledged to give away 99% of his wealth to charities. How much more do you want from the guy?
More to the point, he has consistently said that the rich should be taxed more as he does here.
Bill Gates has also pledged to give away 50% of his wealth. Generosity and a willingness to "give back" is not necessarily a detriment to acquiring wealth yourself.
QuoteQuoteHonestly, if I was a millionaire I would not care if my taxes went up. Because I would still be a fucking millionaire!
With an attitude like that, you will probably never be a millionaire or if you become one you won't be for long.
Tell that to Warren Buffett. He has that attitude in spades.
Quote
I'd suggest a compromise. Do your 2-4 minutes in the tunnel and just get a feel for stable falling.
Keep in mind that the 2 - 4 minute blocks are priced at around $25/hr compared to the volume blocks that are closer to $10/hr. You wouldn't be saving as much as you think.
Quote
Did you know that the top one percent of American wage earners (adjusted gross income) pay about 38 percent of all our federal personal taxes (according to the National Taxpayer Union)? The top one percent, by the way, account for 23.5 percent of all income — a substantial amount, yes, but considerably less than 38 percent.
I'm not sure why you're so surprised.
I believe that break down is a consequence of the fact that we have a progressive tax structure where the rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. If we had a completely flat tax, you would indeed have that top 1% paying 23.5% of the total tax.
Now whether you think its fair or not for millionaires to pay a higher percentage is something you can certainly argue one way or the other but as of now, they are.
Quote
IMHO, skip the tandem. While it counts towards your jump numbers, at this point it's a waste of money. The money would be better spent on tunnel time or your first AFF jump.
+1
For the price of a tandem, you can do a full 15 minutes in the tunnel rather than piddle around with 2 or 4 minute blocks.
Quote
The issue, I think, is that going from Belly to Back seems to present a pause in between. I can do a Belly to Back and Back to Belly layout. The pause would make this seem like two maneuvers, not one backflip.
Good point - my guess is that putting in enough reps will tend to smooth out the transitions. But of course if you really want to know, Joda's the man to ask - he could tell you exactly what's behind the move, what drills make it easier, etc.
Quote
ps. You coming up to NH with Scarecrow anytime soon. The groups are getting much larger, and much more interesting.
Would love to - actually, I'm going up this weekend with a somewhat smaller group (4 hrs for 5 people). I don't know how you guys do it - pretty soon you'll have to open your own tunnel with the numbers you're pulling in!
QuoteI'm going to say it's more for power. Take a look at this... http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php
Estimated net worth of congresspersons. Latest year is 2008. No way is it for the salary. But take a look at the $$ spent on lobbying efforts.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
I definitely agree that it's probably more weighted towards power. But I wouldn't discount money completely - try looking at net worth in the House but sorted by poorest first.
QuoteQuoteyou can make the argument that, generally speaking, someone making $200K would be less likely to look for bribes than someone making $50K.
you can make the argument......
I'd make the argument that the access to power and the character of the individual play so much more that the salary level really doesn't matter at all
That's fine - but at the end of the day they're both pretty much subjective arguments unless you can back them up with some kind of evidence.
People go into politics for a number of different reasons - I'd be willing to agree that power and money are two of the leading factors.
QuoteI'm with you until the last line. Are you saying 174K isn't enough to make them want to switch?
Another justification for higher congressional salaries is to try and make it less likely for corruption to develop. Clearly some will turn out crooked no matter what, but you can make the argument that, generally speaking, someone making $200K would be less likely to look for bribes than someone making $50K.
QuoteQuoteQuote
Point #1: Nobody called anybody a whore. Lots of non-whores have been inside a whorehouse.
Now that made me laugh!
Screen Name : Likearock . . .
umm - If I say what is obvious, I will probably get a warning or so . . . instead I'll just let obvious be obvious.
Funny - let us know if your daughter likes that one as well.
Quote
Point #1: Nobody called anybody a whore. Lots of non-whores have been inside a whorehouse.
Now that made me laugh!
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNot surprising you'd find it "funny" to turn an old "joke" into one implying the President's wife is a whore.
Stay classy, my friend.
so, change the names to something that'll sit better in your political comfort zone - or do a search on this specific joke and find versions there that already do it for you
Some of us don't find such jokes funny even when they are targeted on political opponents.
And some people completely lack a sense of humor.
If having a sense of humor means laughing when somebody calls another man's wife a whore, I'm glad I don't have one.
QuoteQuoteNot surprising you'd find it "funny" to turn an old "joke" into one implying the President's wife is a whore.
Stay classy, my friend.
so, change the names to something that'll sit better in your political comfort zone - or do a search on this specific joke and find versions there that already do it for you
Some of us don't find such jokes funny even when they are targeted on political opponents.
QuoteQuoteOK, let's say you're right.
-Who did it?
-Why?
Straight, direct, concise answers to both, in your own words, if you please.
Pfffftt........We all know it was an evil plot hatched by Bush/Cheney and PNAC to take over the World and control the flow of oil. What rock have you been hiding under?
True but then the only thing I don't understand is, since Bush and Cheney engineered the whole thing, how come they fabricated Al Qaeda for the fall guys rather than Saddam Hussein?
QuoteI bet they do 10 - 12 hours per day easy. Skyventure tunnels are built to run.
You still have to ask yourself if the larger size at XP is worth paying 3 times the price of a smaller SV tunnel. It's hard to see how they would be getting three times the revenue.
QuoteI did a little reading, and Fox doesn't have the same policy of requiring reporting of contributions as the MSM do.
I think it's the reporting (and being generally obnoxious) that's gotten Olbermann, not the contribution. At least from what I've read. He has to report as a possible conflict of interest.
So Scarborough did report his contributions? MSNBC should really get clear about that to avoid looking like complete hypocrites.
QuoteThe reason for the rule is obvious. I'm not sure if he's in trouble mainly because of the contribution itself, or mainly because he violated that part of the rule saying he had to get The Boss's advance permission.
Here's an article that says Joe Scarborough, Anderson Cooper and Sean Hannity have also made political contributions (No; two Wongs don't make a White), but unfortunately it doesn't say whether they did so with their employers' advance permission. I'd like to know that, for comparison's sake.
http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/keiths-got-company-hannity-scarborough-made-political-donations-too-22312
I'd think Scarborough would be the most interesting example. Isn't he on the same network as Olbermann?
Do the "rich" really PAY this much?
in Speakers Corner
And why exactly is that important?