I bet Warren Buffett paid more taxes than I did.

It's a good thing that America is a place that attracts the super-wealthy.

Even if we taxed them at a Beatlesque "one for you, nineteen for me" rate, it would not make a 1% difference in our total tax revenues, but it would drive them to friendlier locales.

The problem is NOT that Buffett pays too little, but that they schnook making $150,000 is paying 40%. No one should be paying more than 15%.

TomatoPie wrote:I bet Warren Buffett paid more taxes than I did.

It's a good thing that America is a place that attracts the super-wealthy.

Even if we taxed them at a Beatlesque "one for you, nineteen for me" rate, it would not make a 1% difference in our total tax revenues, but it would drive them to friendlier locales.

The problem is NOT that Buffett pays too little, but that they schnook making $150,000 is paying 40%. No one should be paying more than 15%.

I bet Buffett paid fewer taxes per dollar of income than you did.

What is magical about 15%? Where did you get that number? Why not 14%? Why not 16%?

I'm really late on this, but people should read "What I've Learned" by Tony Blair in the June 2-8 Economist.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... id=9257593

Especially note the 2nd half.

phdave wrote:What is magical about 15%? Where did you get that number? Why not 14%? Why not 16%?

if memory serves, its a tax percentage the late uncle miltie friedman was fond of.

TomatoPie wrote:I bet Warren Buffett paid more taxes than I did.

go on, punk - bet the man a million

TomatoPie wrote:I bet Warren Buffett paid more taxes than I did.

It's a good thing that America is a place that attracts the super-wealthy.

Even if we taxed them at a Beatlesque "one for you, nineteen for me" rate, it would not make a 1% difference in our total tax revenues, but it would drive them to friendlier locales.

The problem is NOT that Buffett pays too little, but that they schnook making $150,000 is paying 40%. No one should be paying more than 15%.

Please explain to me how they pay for anything then.

What is fair and not fair is a matter of perspective. You may think 15% is fair across the board. But 1500 dollars means a LOT more to someone making 10K a year than 150000 dollars means to someone making 1 million a year.

People with more money should pay higher percentages just for the sheer fact that they have more to lose by NOT paying more. Taxes are insurance on the rest of their vast fortune. They pay for the roads that allow their trucks to drop their supplies off at their stores. They pay for the police to keep people from stealing their crap. They pay for the army to invade countries to steal oil for them.

Why the heck does a poor person need to pay taxes? I'd LOVE to see a revolution where you band the 40% of the country's poor together and just have them all stop paying any taxes. They'd see no effect on their lives and they'd keep their money.

Disco Stu wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:I bet Warren Buffett paid more taxes than I did.

It's a good thing that America is a place that attracts the super-wealthy.

Even if we taxed them at a Beatlesque "one for you, nineteen for me" rate, it would not make a 1% difference in our total tax revenues, but it would drive them to friendlier locales.

The problem is NOT that Buffett pays too little, but that they schnook making $150,000 is paying 40%. No one should be paying more than 15%.

Please explain to me how they pay for anything then.

What is fair and not fair is a matter of perspective. You may think 15% is fair across the board. But 1500 dollars means a LOT more to someone making 10K a year than 150000 dollars means to someone making 1 million a year.

People with more money should pay higher percentages just for the sheer fact that they have more to lose by NOT paying more. Taxes are insurance on the rest of their vast fortune. They pay for the roads that allow their trucks to drop their supplies off at their stores. They pay for the police to keep people from stealing their crap. They pay for the army to invade countries to steal oil for them.

Why the heck does a poor person need to pay taxes? I'd LOVE to see a revolution where you band the 40% of the country's poor together and just have them all stop paying any taxes. They'd see no effect on their lives and they'd keep their money.

What poor person pays taxes :roll:

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:I bet Warren Buffett paid more taxes than I did.

go on, punk - bet the man a million

Buffett is huffing about the rate, not the dollars paid.

Buffett is a great man in many ways, and also a caring man. He is obviously uncomfortable about the wealth he has amassed. And it's fine for him to manage it as he does. But I'm not on board with his calling for the government to enforce his sense of propriety on other wealthy people. It's fine to encourage philanthropy, but America is prosperous precisely because we have few restraints against the accumulation of wealth.

VoxOrion wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:I bet Warren Buffett paid more taxes than I did.

It's a good thing that America is a place that attracts the super-wealthy.

Even if we taxed them at a Beatlesque "one for you, nineteen for me" rate, it would not make a 1% difference in our total tax revenues, but it would drive them to friendlier locales.

The problem is NOT that Buffett pays too little, but that they schnook making $150,000 is paying 40%. No one should be paying more than 15%.

Please explain to me how they pay for anything then.

What is fair and not fair is a matter of perspective. You may think 15% is fair across the board. But 1500 dollars means a LOT more to someone making 10K a year than 150000 dollars means to someone making 1 million a year.

People with more money should pay higher percentages just for the sheer fact that they have more to lose by NOT paying more. Taxes are insurance on the rest of their vast fortune. They pay for the roads that allow their trucks to drop their supplies off at their stores. They pay for the police to keep people from stealing their crap. They pay for the army to invade countries to steal oil for them.

Why the heck does a poor person need to pay taxes? I'd LOVE to see a revolution where you band the 40% of the country's poor together and just have them all stop paying any taxes. They'd see no effect on their lives and they'd keep their money.

What poor person pays taxes :roll:

Me.

Some interesting political items this midday:

White House to Oversight Bodies: Drop Dead

Comment: supporters of invasive measures such as warrantless wiretapping sometimes say, "If you've got nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" I won't hold my breath waiting for the consistent application of this logic in the case of "Fredogate."

Immigration Bill Dies in Senate

Comment: Without opining on the bill itself, I wonder how much of this was the Republican Senators' desire to finally stick it to Bush on something where there would be minimal political price to pay.

MoreReactionary Supreme Court Decisions

Comment: These guys suck it harder than any Court in my lifetime. Roberts and Alito are proving themselves lying scumbags; after pledging to respect precedent, not rule on ideology, and, in Roberts' case, to look for common ground and consensus votes, we've been treated to endless 5-4 decisions that all serve to turn the clock back to the 1890s Golden Age of Evil that movement Republicans so revere.

The school segregation ruling is a complete disgrace. The Court rests its decision on distinguishing from Grutter v. Bollinger. They claim that Grutter is different because in a University setting there is a specialized need for a diverse student body. Of course, the entire thrust of the Brown decision is that scientifically it is shown that it is most important to expose children to diversity in their formative years. At least Scalia's opinions are legally sound and reasoned.

It's amazing how with it Stevens remains. You could argue that his brief personal dissent was mostly the work of law clerks but I doubt law clerks would have disagreed with C.J. Roberts in such a paternalistic and at times patronizing manner.

Justice Breyer's dissent is actually quite moving. He points out what to me is the most inherent flaw of the Chief's reasoning which is that while the state has to show a compelling interest, remedying past effects of discrimination qualifies. That is of course, the essence of Brown and its progeny. The de facto, de jure distinction, to me, is inapplicable in the race discrimination arena. The question is whether there is state action, not only state legal action.

kimbatiste wrote:The school segregation ruling is a complete disgrace. The Court rests its decision on distinguishing from Grutter v. Bollinger. They claim that Grutter is different because in a University setting there is a specialized need for a diverse student body. Of course, the entire thrust of the Brown decision is that scientifically it is shown that it is most important to expose children to diversity in their formative years. At least Scalia's opinions are legally sound and reasoned.

It's amazing how with it Stevens remains. You could argue that his brief personal dissent was mostly the work of law clerks but I doubt law clerks would have disagreed with C.J. Roberts in such a paternalistic and at times patronizing manner.

Justice Breyer's dissent is actually quite moving. He points out what to me is the most inherent flaw of the Chief's reasoning which is that while the state has to show a compelling interest, remedying past effects of discrimination qualifies. That is of course, the essence of Brown and its progeny. The de facto, de jure distinction, to me, is inapplicable in the race discrimination arena. The question is whether there is state action, not only state legal action.

Quoted just to note how far superior this post was to my "these guys suck it hard" assessment... though I also stand by that assessment.

If I were in the habit of regular prayer, Stevens' good health and abiding with it-ness would be way high up on the list.

Help me understand your dissent. Reuters reports it this way:

Students cannot be assigned to public schools because of their race, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a significant civil rights decision that casts doubt on integration efforts adopted across the country.

By a 5-4 vote on the last day of its term, the court's conservative majority struck down voluntary programs adopted in Seattle and Louisville, Kentucky, to attain racial diversity in public school classrooms.

"The principle that racial balancing is not permitted is one of substance, not semantics," Roberts wrote for the majority. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

The court's four liberal members said in a bitter dissent that the ruling threatened the Supreme Court's historic Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 that outlawed racial segregation in the nation's public schools.

Help me out, please.

The Brown vs Board of Ed decision outlawed racial segregation in the nation's public schools.

This decision outlaws racial discrimination in the nation's public schools.

What hairs are the dissenters trying to split here? Bad to discriminate for reasons we disapprove, but OK to dsicriminate for reasons we endorse?

How can we, by reason or by the Constitution, endorse any rule that deliberately discriminates on the basis of race?

You can also, in a 5-4 decision, kiss the Sherman Anti-trust act goodbye.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/busin ... rt.html?hp

And, I'm really sick of right wing nuts being disengenous about race. The fact is, this is essentially the federal courts compelling local governments to resegregate.

TomatoPie wrote:Help me understand your dissent. Reuters reports it this way:

Students cannot be assigned to public schools because of their race, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a significant civil rights decision that casts doubt on integration efforts adopted across the country.

By a 5-4 vote on the last day of its term, the court's conservative majority struck down voluntary programs adopted in Seattle and Louisville, Kentucky, to attain racial diversity in public school classrooms.

"The principle that racial balancing is not permitted is one of substance, not semantics," Roberts wrote for the majority. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

The court's four liberal members said in a bitter dissent that the ruling threatened the Supreme Court's historic Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 that outlawed racial segregation in the nation's public schools.

What hairs are the dissenters trying to split here? Bad to discriminate for reasons we disapprove, but OK to dsicriminate for reasons we endorse?

I understand your question but the answer under the 14th Amendment Constitutional framework adopted by the Court is yes. Though a severely limited one. But the Court has held repeatedly, not just with the 13th and 14th Amendments but with respect to other laws such as the Voting Rights Act, that "discrimination" necessary to cure past discrimination is permissible under certain conditions.

You're ignoring the holding of Brown which is not only that discrimination will not be allowed. The real holding of Brown is that segregation, whether de facto or de jure, is not equality. The exact quote is that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." What we have today are separated educational facilities again. In Breyer's dissent he notes that 1 in 6 African American students attends school that are 99-100% minority.

Roberts quote is incorrect as well. The way to stop discriminating on race is to stop discriminating on race BUT only when past discrimination has been rectified. The Court has already stated this principle in previous holdings allowing Affirmative Action programs noting that they serve this purpose but there is not an everlasting right to this programs and they may continue only so long as is necessary. Apparently, 56% of the Court decided that today was that time.

I disagree because I believe that the discrimination continues to this day. The criminal underfunding of inner-city school districts is but one example. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that race conscious laws are permissible until the "badges of slavery" identified in the 13th Amendment have been removed. Are minority hiring programs upheld in cases like City of Richmond now fair game as well? If the Court thinks so, then they should make the case but not so capriciously and arrogantly declare this to be the case. I believe that is the burn in Stevens dissent... that no member of the Court when he joined in 1975 would have agreed with the outcome today.

I will stand by my comment that it is a disgrace for Roberts to pretend that this follows the holding of Brown by allowing students to go to school where they choose. As Stevens says, Brown was not about white kids trying to attend black schools at the time and it still is not today.[/i]

kimbatiste wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Help me understand your dissent. Reuters reports it this way:

Students cannot be assigned to public schools because of their race, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a significant civil rights decision that casts doubt on integration efforts adopted across the country.

By a 5-4 vote on the last day of its term, the court's conservative majority struck down voluntary programs adopted in Seattle and Louisville, Kentucky, to attain racial diversity in public school classrooms.

"The principle that racial balancing is not permitted is one of substance, not semantics," Roberts wrote for the majority. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

The court's four liberal members said in a bitter dissent that the ruling threatened the Supreme Court's historic Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 that outlawed racial segregation in the nation's public schools.

What hairs are the dissenters trying to split here? Bad to discriminate for reasons we disapprove, but OK to dsicriminate for reasons we endorse?

I understand your question but the answer under the 14th Amendment Constitutional framework adopted by the Court is yes. Though a severely limited one. But the Court has held repeatedly, not just with the 13th and 14th Amendments but with respect to other laws such as the Voting Rights Act, that "discrimination" necessary to cure past discrimination is permissible under certain conditions.

You're ignoring the holding of Brown which is not only that discrimination will not be allowed. The real holding of Brown is that segregation, whether de facto or de jure, is not equality. The exact quote is that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." What we have today are separated educational facilities again. In Breyer's dissent he notes that 1 in 6 African American students attends school that are 99-100% minority.

Roberts quote is incorrect as well. The way to stop discriminating on race is to stop discriminating on race BUT only when past discrimination has been rectified. The Court has already stated this principle in previous holdings allowing Affirmative Action programs noting that they serve this purpose but there is not an everlasting right to this programs and they may continue only so long as is necessary. Apparently, 56% of the Court decided that today was that time.

I disagree because I believe that the discrimination continues to this day. The criminal underfunding of inner-city school districts is but one example. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that race conscious laws are permissible until the "badges of slavery" identified in the 13th Amendment have been removed. Are minority hiring programs upheld in cases like City of Richmond now fair game as well? If the Court thinks so, then they should make the case but not so capriciously and arrogantly declare this to be the case. I believe that is the burn in Stevens dissent... that no member of the Court when he joined in 1975 would have agreed with the outcome today.

I will stand by my comment that it is a disgrace for Roberts to pretend that this follows the holding of Brown by allowing students to go to school where they choose. As Stevens says, Brown was not about white kids trying to attend black schools at the time and it still is not today.[/i]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Any court ruling that permits racial discrimination, no matter how noble the cause, violates the Constitution. While I salute the high-minded ideals that see "good" discrimination as somehow able to erase the "bad" discrimination of the past, such thinking is flawed on multiple levels. Who is the arbiter of what is worthy discrimination, and who decides when society is free of the last vestiges of slavery? And does not state-endorsed disacrimination further the notion that races are not equal?

Believe it or not, conservatives lament, just as does good Justice Bryer, that "that 1 in 6 African American students attends school that are 99-100% minority." But we'd rather see that remedied in a Consitutional fashion. Many of us believe, further, that when the government perpetuates the notion that blacks need help from the government to be on an equal footing, it drives a wedge into a rift that would heal on its own.

TomatoPie wrote:
Believe it or not, conservatives lament, just as does good Justice Bryer, that "that 1 in 6 African American students attends school that are 99-100% minority." But we'd rather see that remedied in a Consitutional fashion. Many of us believe, further, that when the government perpetuates the notion that blacks need help from the government to be on an equal footing, it drives a wedge into a rift that would heal on its own.

Lamentations don't mean squat.

You simply ignored the reply you claimed you found thougthful. How on earth can de facto desegregation be addressed without taking race into account? Brown v. Board did not make racial classification unconstitutional, it made segregation unconstitutional, holding separate can never be equal. We have separate, and hence unequal schools.

It's really quite simple--discrimination is wrong when is serves to segregate schoools. It is not wrong when it has the opposite intent--desegregation.

TP-

While I respect your position immensely, I really do not think that racial inequality is something that can ever heal itself for two reasons.

1. Without government intervention, the decision of whether to discriminate is up to the individual. On the whole, I believe that there is an almost unfathomable amount of racist individuals in the country. Look at after the Civil War, Reconstruction was mostly there to ensure no impediments to African-American advancement but also provide no support. The actions at the time prohibited state discrimination but left the individual to do as they liked. There was simply not a lot of healing that went on. This, of course, was the reason that the Voting Rights, the Civil Rights Act, the imposition of the 14th Amendment to the individual through the Commerce Clause was, at least in my view, necessary. I happen t think that the real badges of slavery are within us. The African-American who grew up in poverty and believes that there is no way, even through hard work, that he could get a superior education and earn an honest living. The white man who views a young black man on the street as simply an unconvicted criminal. Certainly that is not all of us but it is prevalent enough that it stalls us all.

2. This leads to my second reason that I do not believe racism will ever heal itself. The numbers support the racist viewpoint. Whites are much more likely to go to college and have a hire wage. Blacks are much more likely to spend time in prison (44% of all inmates are African-American). My position is that through a decrease in governmental intervention, those numbers will continue to provide racists with a self-fulfilling prophecy that will engender itself through the generations. If someone would think that federal or state aid to improve the quality of inner-city schools would be a sign that blacks need help to be on equal footing then they already think of blacks as an inferior race (in my view that is the definition of racist). No one is saying that inner-city (and lets be honest that has become synonymous with black) schools should be country clubs and white schools left unfunded. But I fully support over-funding black schools to get them to a comparable level to those of their white counterparts. Otherwise we are in post-Reconstruction mindsight.

I would love to see a Constitutional remedy but it takes two to tango. As I'm confident you know, Constitutional Amendments require state approval as well. Congress knows that there is no way that 75% (remember the 13th and 14th Amendments were really forced upon the states) of the states will agree to these measures so they acted on their own. Practically speaking, the situation has worsened to the point where impoverished African-Americans do need a helping hand in some respects. But we point them in that position. A quick story on how state action can be necessary. Central High is a fantastic public high school in Philadelphia, it is designed as a magnet school to prepare the best and the brightest of Philadelphia regardless of race. Of course, being a magnet school, there is not really full school bus coverage. The School District is no longer able to give out free tokens to poor students so that they can attend the school. As a result, now the only people who can attend this public school are the ones who can afford daily bus tickets. As a result, Central is once again becoming a predominantly white school.

That is my real fear. That a lack of state action will lead to segregation and inferior opportunities for blacks through the realities of American society. Perhaps I am overly-idealistic but I can easily imagine a more perfect union than that.

The re-segregation is also objectionable on federalist and judicial restraint grounds. An un-elected federal court is imposing itself on local elected government officials.

TomatoPie wrote:Many of us believe, further, that when the government perpetuates the notion that blacks need help from the government to be on an equal footing, it drives a wedge into a rift that would heal on its own.

This is an ideology of negation and inaction. You've made it very clear on many occasions that you don't believe in government intervention, and at best you'll reluctantly support programs that have proven successful (Social Security). And your notion that the the rift "would heal on its own" is pretty patently ahistorical, for the reasons that kimbatiste noted. People generally act in their own interests, and most of the time, sadly, in the absence of legal force to go in the other direction, that will work toward perpetuating segregation.

Additionally, as Phan Paul points out, what's happened here seems like an act of judicial activism that conservatives under other circumstances would abjure. Which is why I deem Bush's two appointees hypocrites as well as ideologues, based on their statements during confirmation.

Given the general leftward trend in our society as a response to the stunning failure of Bush/DeLay pseudoconservatism, it's not hard for me to see this Roberts Court becoming as seriously out of step with the political consensus as was the early FDR-era Court.