[y66]

Who are these guys?



I don't see any water cooler names on their site.

[barmar]

This is obviously never going to go anywhere. The problem is that there are too few "patriotic" millionaires. If all millionaires were patriotic, we wouldn't need a change to the tax code, they would simply avail themselves of the opportunity to send voluntary contributions. There's nothing forcing them to take deductions for private jets just because they're allowed to, but they do it. I wonder how many of the signatories to that letter tell their tax preparers NOT to file for every legal deduction and credit. I'll bet they all have 401k's, IRAs, annuities, and other tax-advantaged investments.

The argument they're making is "We're millionaires who are willing to pay more taxes, so we think you should force all the OTHER millionaires to pay more taxes, too." But unless the membership of Patriotic Millionaires is a representative sample of millionaires, that approach doesn't really hold water. But there are only 200 members of this organization. Maybe someone will take them seriously when there are a few thousand.

[y66]

How many millionaires does it take to convince voters that the Bush tax cuts are a complete joke?

Yeah, probably way more than the 200 or so they've signed up so far.

I disagree that nothing will come of this. I don't know how many of those guys play bridge, but surely Warren Buffet is feeling a little less lonely lately, which is nice.

[kenberg]

I think having them speak out can be useful. Of course they could donate money, you hear this argument often, but no one wants to be a chump. The idea is to make it clear that many of us could do more, maybe even easily do more, and that if we all put in a reasoanble share than we can get somewhere. My mantra on this: During the closing years of the Clinton administratino two things were true:
A. I paid more in taxes.
B. The budget was balanced, and debt was even being paid down.

I could afford the taxes and I liked the balanced budget.

I remain willing to pay more taxes as long as others do also and it contributes to national solvency. I would not think highly of doing it all myself, voluntary or otherwise.

We should cut wasteful spending? Well, sure, I definitely am not an advocate of wasteful spending. I was brought up to not squander money. But it is my strong opinion that I have benefited greatly from living in this country and I favor keeping it solvent. I think that these millionaires are saying much the same thing.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2011-November-19, 10:32, said:

I think having them speak out can be useful. Of course they could donate money, you hear this argument often, but no one wants to be a chump. The idea is to make it clear that many of us could do more, maybe even easily do more, and that if we all put in a reasoanble share than we can get somewhere. My mantra on this: During the closing years of the Clinton administratino two things were true:
A. I paid more in taxes.
B. The budget was balanced, and debt was even being paid down.

I could afford the taxes and I liked the balanced budget.

I remain willing to pay more taxes as long as others do also and it contributes to national solvency. I would not think highly of doing it all myself, voluntary or otherwise.

We should cut wasteful spending? Well, sure, I definitely am not an advocate of wasteful spending. I was brought up to not squander money. But it is my strong opinion that I have benefited greatly from living in this country and I favor keeping it solvent. I think that these millionaires are saying much the same thing.

Please don't interfere in the narrative belief by using facts - it gets really confusing.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2011-November-19, 10:32, said:

I think having them speak out can be useful. Of course they could donate money, you hear this argument often, but no one wants to be a chump. The idea is to make it clear that many of us could do more, maybe even easily do more, and that if we all put in a reasonable share than we can get somewhere. My mantra on this: During the closing years of the Clinton administration two things were true:
A. I paid more in taxes.
B. The budget was balanced, and debt was even being paid down.

I could afford the taxes and I liked the balanced budget.

I remain willing to pay more taxes as long as others do also and it contributes to national solvency. I would not think highly of doing it all myself, voluntary or otherwise.

We should cut wasteful spending? Well, sure, I definitely am not an advocate of wasteful spending. I was brought up to not squander money. But it is my strong opinion that I have benefited greatly from living in this country and I favor keeping it solvent. I think that these millionaires are saying much the same thing.

Well put. This is my view exactly.

[kenberg]

Thanks. Although you would probably spell "then" correctly. I rarely make these mistakes when writing by hand, but typing still defeats me.

[nigel_k]

The problem with all of this is that there is no effective redistribution unless these millionaires actually spend less on themselves. If they continue to spend the same amount on themselves but pay more tax, then they will necessarily have to reduce how much they invest. That reduced investment will mean fewer jobs and a lower standard of living for many other people.

It it quite unlikely that giving money to the federal government instead of investing it, while holding constant how much you consume yourself, will lead to others being able to consume more, or any other kind of net benefit to the rest of society.

[Winstonm]

Forbes has an interesting take on U.S. wealth disparity.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2011-November-19, 10:32, said:

I think having them speak out can be useful. Of course they could donate money, you hear this argument often, but no one wants to be a chump. The idea is to make it clear that many of us could do more, maybe even easily do more, and that if we all put in a reasoanble share than we can get somewhere.

Everyone likes volunteering to do more, no one likes being FORCED to do more.

Imagine if, instead of giving you a tax deduction for charitable contributions, they charged you a penalty for NOT making contributions.

[PassedOut]

barmar, on 2011-November-21, 02:55, said:

Everyone likes volunteering to do more, no one likes being FORCED to do more.

By the same token, I suppose many folks would be happier if they were not FORCED to pay their credit card bills and that the minimum payments were merely designated as "suggestions." Your argument has great appeal to the free lunch crowd, but not to any responsible person.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2011-November-21, 02:55, said:

Everyone likes volunteering to do more, no one likes being FORCED to do more.

Imagine if, instead of giving you a tax deduction for charitable contributions, they charged you a penalty for NOT making contributions.

To take your last sentence first, there is a substantial difference between purposes here. It's true that if I give money to the local VFD it could have some self-interest as motivation, I may need the Fire Department's services someday. But if I give money to a soup kitchen or to a shelter for battered women, I do not expect to need these services. The donation is because I think that they do some good. Mostly that is how charity goes, it is given to help others. Taxes are different. I really believe that I have benefited greatly from at least some government programs. I expect to continue to benefit from Social Security and Medicare. The contribution of our military to the preservation of my comfortable life is, I believe, beyond question. I drive on roads and on bridges built by tax dollars. In this view, taxes are a payment for benefits received by my parents, by me, and by my children and grandchildren. Whether you agree with this assessment of benefits is of course a question, but the difference between my view of charitable contributions and tax payments seems to me to be correct.

I have , as mentioned before, a friend who is very much a devotee of the Pauls, of Rand, and in general of that philosophy. When pushed, he will (almost) follow this through to its logical conclusion. Public universities should be closed. He is not quite so sure about high schools and elementary schools. All I can say is that I see things differently.

As to forcing: I grew up reading about Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, and all that. Billy the Kid and Jesse James also were sometimes portrayed as heroes. It's one way of life. I have a different way of life. We live in a society and we make rules about how it should be financed. This requires some level of force if it is to work. I guess a current example of another approach is Greece. As I understand it, income tax is regarded there as a suggestion. This is not working very well, I think.

[kenberg]

I have to toss in this story, maybe I told it before.

I grew up in St. Paul. Sometime in, I believe, 1955 the schools realized that they needed more tax money. This had to be put to the voters, and they turned it down. At this point the school system announced that budget cuts had to be made, so high school football would be eliminated. Then they put the request for more money up for another vote. It passed.


Perhaps I should send this story to the SuperCommittee, there may be a lesson in it.

[barmar]

PassedOut, on 2011-November-21, 08:40, said:

By the same token, I suppose many folks would be happier if they were not FORCED to pay their credit card bills and that the minimum payments were merely designated as "suggestions." Your argument has great appeal to the free lunch crowd, but not to any responsible person.

That's an incredibly silly analogy. When you sign up for a credit card, you agree to pay for what you buy with it.

What's going on here is that millionaire A is saying "I'm willing to give up my perks, therefore you should take these perks away from millionaire B, too."

If you want a credit card analogy, that's like someone saying "I know the minimum payment is only 10%, but I'm willing to pay at least 20% every month -- I think you should raise everyone else's minimum, too."

[PassedOut]

barmar, on 2011-November-21, 22:20, said:

That's an incredibly silly analogy. When you sign up for a credit card, you agree to pay for what you buy with it.

Are you saying that you have no responsibility to pay for government activities that you did not agree with?

Perhaps your argument is that you don't owe anything for the Iraq war because you opposed it from the beginning and never voted for anyone who supported it. Well, you are not alone in recognizing the stupidity of that war, and yet the government elected by the people of the US wasted huge sums there without raising the taxes to pay for it -- so that debt belongs to all of us. The same is true for other activities and programs.

By maintaining US citizenship, a person agrees to pay for the government's activities whether one approves of the activities or not. Folks who disagree with that can vote with their feet.

[y66]

Millionaire A is saying that the Bush tax cuts are a joke and should be allowed to expire.

[Aberlour10]

PassedOut, on 2011-November-22, 08:36, said:

By maintaining US citizenship, a person agrees to pay for the government's activities whether one approves of the activities or not. Folks who disagree with that can vote with their feet

Can they? Is it right that US citizens with abroad residency have to pay US taxes like anybody in US inland?
If yes, I wish here would be a similar law valid, for all these german citizens, who use/used german infrastructure but residing in Switzerland, Monaco or elsewhere, paying 0,00 € on german taxes. But it will not happen for sure >>>> Its strange, but all political parties in Germany are against it excl. post-communists.

[PassedOut]

Aberlour10, on 2011-November-22, 09:48, said:

Can they? Is it right that US citizens with abroad residency have to pay US taxes like anybody in US inland?
If yes, I wish here would be a similar law valid, for all these german citizens, who use/used german infrastructure but residing in Switzerland, Monaco or elsewhere, paying 0,00 € on german taxes. But it will not happen for sure >>>> Its strange, but all political parties in Germany are against it excl. post-communists.

They can become citizens of a country that endorses the free-lunch philosophy that they espouse: Greece perhaps?

[Aberlour10]

PassedOut, on 2011-November-22, 10:22, said:

They can become citizens of a country that endorses the free-lunch philosophy that they espouse: Greece perhaps?

Surely, but they are forced to give their US citizenship up. The Germans don't have to do it for avoiding the german taxes. All they need to do is to say: "Auf Wiedersehen"

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-November-22, 08:36, said:

Are you saying that you have no responsibility to pay for government activities that you did not agree with?

i think he was just saying that yours was an incredibly silly analogy