Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

O come on. Before anyone starts believing this oldman that we the lower income earners are really paying more taxes, let´s get back into perspective using some of the general facts given in this news article: Mr. Buffet earned $46,000,000 for YoA 2006. Assuming that his taxable income is a mere $1,000,000 he would have paid $177,000 being 17.7%. Now let´s assume that his receptionist's taxable income is a pathetic $10,000 for YoA 2006 and unfairly taxed at 35% (US max rate), which would be $3,500.

$177,000 compared with $3,500? Come on, who´s paying more taxes? From the point of view of contribution to the country, the rich man certainly does more than the average Jane & Joe.

It would appear that Mr. Buffet is trying to 'seduce' the people.

Kong Kek Kuat, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

The reason Mr. Buffett doesn't pay much in taxes is that most of his income is derived from capital gains and dividends, which are quite correctly taxed at a lower rate than personal income.

Capital investment is the engine that drives the American economy. Raising taxes on capital gains discourages investment. It should also be noted that historically, treasury revenues increase when capital gain are taxed at a lower rate. If the purpose of the tax code is to raise revenues for federal spending, wouldn't it be wise to tax capital at a rate designed to produce the highest amount amount of tax revenues? As for dividends, the elderly in America are heavily dependent on the dividend checks they receive. Why raise their taxes?

What Mr. Buffett and other like-minded liberals don't seem to understand is that there is nothing stopping them from sending whatever they consider to be their fair share in taxes to the federal government. Then perhaps they can all sleep at night.

Tony P., montclair, NJ/US

Mr. Buffett's lower effective rate is due to income of capital gains (and probably tax-free muni bonds), not salary. For the receptionist, her income is salary, thus subject to the higher rates.

Second, lower capital gains rates encourage capital formation and investment. Why is no one wanting to lower the receptionist's rate but instead demanding an increase for the capital gains?

Third, Mr. Buffett can pay as much tax as he wants. If he feels that he's cheating the system or his poor receptionist, he can pay more to assuage his guilt. No need to bully the rest of us.

Fourth, the inheritance tax does not affect exclusively "rich" families, but those who have assets. This means that small business owners and family farms are "rich" in their total company value or land, but cash poor.

The death tax simply destroys these families, forcing them to sell the family legacy.

As for the 30m poor families, they aren't paying any tax anyway., let alone $1000 for the death tax.

Why the Virginia Tech Shooting Hurts the Anti-gun Crowd

While the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups are gearing up for a supposed assault from the left, I think nothing will come of it. If anything, the Virginia Tech shooting will help gun rights advocates. Here's my logic:

When a shooting takes place where guns are permitted or where the victims are children (who could not have legally owned guns), it sets up a what-if situation and allows the anti-gun crowd to say, "See? If only society had banned handguns this could've been prevented."

However, if a shooting takes place where guns are already banned and where, unlike in Columbine, the victims could've legally had guns to defend themselves had they not been, the anti-gun lobby receives a one-two punch.

First, the shooting is a real-life example proving the futility of trying to keep guns away from criminals by banning them: Guns were banned, but a criminal violated the law and brought a gun where he wasn't supposed to. People are left thinking, "Gun laws don't stop criminals."

Secondly, the defenselessness of the victims highlights how devastating not having a gun is when you need one. People are left thinking, "If only the students had guns too!"

The New York Times is still victimizing innocent Dukies. - By Stuart Taylor Jr. - Slate Magazine

The New York Times is still victimizing innocent Dukies. - By Stuart Taylor Jr. - Slate Magazine

A great article summarizing all the problems with the case against the Duke lacrosse players.

Reading between the rhymes - News

Reading between the rhymes - News

This professor is a socialist but he makes money from finding racism. Is it any wonder he finds racism where there is none? Ho, Ho! Three cheers for incentives! Try as they might, even socialists themselves can't psychologically escape the mighty...Invisible Hand!

When Springsteen sings "From the town of Lincoln, Nebraska, with a sawed-off .410 on my lap/Through to the badlands of Wyoming, I killed everything in my path," the audience generally understands it is a dramatization.

But not with Eminem and other rappers, Rodman said. Society refuses to believe rappers have the intellectual capacity to sing about purely fantastical, violent situations.

"Why is it so difficult for us to envision Eminem (and other rappers) as someone who might have enough creativity, intelligence and artistry to fashion and perform a convincing fictional persona?" he said. "(It's) a bias that rests on the misguided notion that some people are simply incapable of certain sorts of higher thinking and artistic creativity."

That's funny. I have a different explanation of why Society (the professor means "whitey") believes that when rappers rap about violence, they rap about their true feelings. Simply this: We take them at their word (and not just their lyrics). To rappers, that what they rap about is "fo' reeel" is a given. When an outsider questions whether it is just "for show" or entertainment they essentially question the rapper's "street cred", a faux-pas of perhaps deadly proportions. Heck, rappers insult each other by calling their opponents "wanna-be gangstas" as opposed to themselves who really live "da thug life." When in real life rappers are routinely arrested for drug possession and weapons possession (see Snoop Dog), when not just their entourage but their record producers (see Suge Knight) are put in prison, and when popular rappers (see Tupac, Notorious B.I.G., et al.) are gunned down the onus is on those who claim rappers don't mean what they say about violence to prove it.

I'm sure many rappers would also find this professor's premise, that what rappers sing about is not true, to be not just wrong but patently racist: "What? You can't believe that ghetto-thug life is this bad? That we hate the police, that we think women are just ho's and bitches, and that drugs are commonplace? We should expect a white professor to think only white singers can speak the truth!"

Another double standard is while a portion of society believes Eminem symbolizes the demise of youth in society, they fail to recognize or believe the converse -- that so-called positive influences produce positive results in American culture.

"No one seems to believe that popular computer games like SimCity will make us a nation of brilliantly creative urban planners, but it's almost a given that graphically violent games like Mortal Kombat will generate armies of murderous super-predator teens bent on terrorizing our cities," Rodman said.

What infantile wishful-thinking! (Professor stomps feet) "Waaaaah! It's not fair! If you say bad video games hurt people then you *have* to say good video games help them! Waaaaah!" No, maybe it works that way or maybe it doesn't. Maybe the facts simply are that seeing and participating in virtual violence makes a person more violent in real life but playing games like SimCity just doesn't help us plan better in real-life. I'd like to see some studies on it but until then, who knows? What I do know is that the professor should pull up his underwear because his false dichotomy is showing.

John Hardin, a doctoral student and USF instructor, said people should listen to Eminem, because most of what he says -- whether pleasant or not -- largely reflects a portion of society.

"I think we need to embrace how complicated society is," Hardin said. "Getting rid of Eminem doesn't get rid of the problems. You still have Dylan Klebolds that walk into Columbine and shoot people."

Quite true. But what do receive from these same liberals when you explain, "Getting rid of guns doesn't get rid of the problems. You still have outlaws who will possess guns and kill innocent law-abiding citizens"? I'll give you a hint: it's the name of this blog.

The Hillary Spot on National Review Online

The Hillary Spot on National Review Online

This is like someone who thinks that the the biggest threat to neighborhood peace is for that guy whose handicapped mother got raped and beaten up to go out and kill the man who did it after he got off on a technicality.

God Bless Bill Cosby!

Pound Cake speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"I’m talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? (applause) Where were you when he was twelve? (applause) Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don’t know he had a pistol?"

"We cannot blame white people. White people (applause)... white people don’t live over there."

"Therefore, you have the pile up of these sweet beautiful things born by nature raised by no one. Give them presents. You’re raising pimps. That’s what a pimp is. A pimp will act nasty to you so you have to go out and get them something. And then you bring it back and maybe he or she hugs you."

"Brown v. Board of Education, these people who marched and were hit in the face with rocks and punched in the face to get an education and we got these knuckleheads walking around who don’t want to learn English."

"You can’t land a plane with “why you ain’t…” You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. "

"We have to begin to build in the neighborhood, have restaurants, have cleaners, have pharmacies, have real estate, have medical buildings instead of trying to rob them all."

"Basketball players, multimillionaires, can’t write a paragraph. Football players, multimillionaires, can’t read. Yes. Multimillionaires. Well, Brown v. Board of Education, where are we today? It’s there. They paved the way. What did we do with it? The white man, he’s laughing, got to be laughing. 50 percent drop out, rest of them in prison."

In Focus Article

In Focus Article

One of the most interesting paradigm shifts I underwent via Buddhism was the idea that the opposite of "Black" is not "White", it is "Not Black". This realization, I believe, actually has profound implications for how one views the world. Unfortunately, this principle has been interpreted (twisted?) and put into use by so-called Western Buddhists (who exhibit true Buddhist values about as much as Arlen Specter exhibits true Republican ones) to say something-to-the-effect of, "Hey, man! There is no Good. There is no Evil. It's all the same, man!" as they take another hit of the ganga pipe.

It is much easier to believe "it's all the same" and thereby remove any pangs of guilt, responsibility, and duty one might have to respect, among other things, the private property rights of others and, while this may have been what was taught to them at the "Benjamin Spock School for How to Raise Whiners", the Buddha didn't say that and, more importantly, it's not how reality works.

Unfortunately for the liberals who denigrate western achievement and individual material success, the fact that "Black's opposite" is not, "White" and "White's opposite" is not "Black" does not mean that "Black" and "White" are the same. They are, indeed, two different things and sometimes one is simply "Good" and the other "Bad".

Things I'd like to ask Socialists/Communists

What do you say about wealthy entertainers (who get paid millions of dollars for their acting) who are sympathetic (like Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, and Susan Sarandon, etc.)? Are they considered capitalists or no, because they don't actually use "capital" to earn money. Under socialism/communism, what do you do with these people and their money?

How will what were management decisions be made at what used to be private businesses?

What about marketing? What would marketing look like (even exist?) under socialism? Socialists are big on saying that corporate Amerika manipulates innocent consumers into wanting things they wouldn't otherwise so are we to assume there wouldn't be marketing at all or just "non-manipulative" marketing?

I gots to find me some South Florida Socialists of whom to ask these questions...they keep me up at night.

Run (don't walk) to see this movie!

What do you say about a movie named eponymously for the philosophy embodied in the Declaration of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson is spoken of with reverence and awe, wealth viewed as a good thing, and capitalism and hard work the means to achieve it?

What if in the same movie, rich successful white people are admired and portrayed as helpful fair-minded role-models rather than racist foils and the IRS is a heartless bankrupting bureaucracy?

And what if the person who holds these views is a homeless black man who somehow has realized that in life, the reason why you don't get what you want is usually not because some enemy (whitey, the po-leece, societal racism, etc.) thwarted you, but that you simply made poor decisions and didn't work hard enough?

Oh yes, and what if I told you it's based on a true story. (That you might have guessed since all of the viewpoints above are based on reality.)

Well, you say it's uniquely great and should win multiple academy awards.

It won't, but you should see The Pursuit of Happyness anyway. I'll see it more than once and make gifts of the DVD when it comes out.