You avoid taxes by donating to charity?

You're f'n clueless, and what's worse, you're going to shoot off your hole until everyone KNOWS you're f'n clueless.

Go set yourself on fire.

Dan, EVERYBODY knows that increased income increases your tax liability, by donating to charity, you decrease that tax liability. By giving 40 billion to charity, WB avoided paying taxes on that money as well as wowing clueless people like you with his fake generosity. He avoided paying taxes on the money, then complains others aren't paying their fair share.

The only thing on fire around here are your hemorrhoids.

Please do not feed the Trolls.

Fake generosity huh?

Go kill yourself and do the world a favor.

Yeah.

Agree with Hank.

Sometimes you have to take the job you can get, not the job you want.

Your odds of success would be far greater if you let someone else do it.
If the internet is any indication, Baithumper doesn't succeed at anything very often.

I'll show the fuckin IRS...I'm going to give away 40 Billion Dollars to screw them out of taxing me on it!!

Anyone who believes this is why Buffet gave his fortune away is either retarded, brain damaged, or dumber than a box of rusty hammers.

Or all three.

Fish on...

Todd

Hank

"I don't want to pay $18 Billion in taxes, so I think I'll give away $40 Billion..."

I hope you manage your own debt and checkbook better than that, dunker.

Fish on...

Todd

Hank,

You and I agree 99 wks is too long. I know folks (perhaps you all do too) who are in "looking for a great job" mode, rather than "Make ends meet" mode, and have been there for 1+ years. I'm a believer in unemployment benefits, but I also believe in their expiration.

The second issue -- tax cuts (unfunded as they are) is interesting only because nobody can agree with the basis should be. If you claim the basis is today, then taking no action (letting bush tax cuts expire) equals a "tax increase". If you claim the basis is pre-bush-tax-cuts, then allowing them to expire is "ending stimulus" of a kind.

Of course I want low taxes. Of course I think I can spend my money better than the government can. Everyone thinks that way -- just like they think their kids are above average in whatever it is their kids do.

The real issue here is what is the right/reasonable tax rate given the current economic climate. I personally find it hard to believe we should make a decision to put $700B into stimulus-rebates to the top wage-earners. I don't believe that's better for our country right now. Those who I know personally who stand to benefit from this tax break UNIVERSALLY believe it will not cause them to hire a single new employee. Not one.

I don't know what the "optimal" tax rate is for our current national crisis, but I find it personally hard to believe that it's the status quo, or lower.

Ordinarily I'd agree that 99 weeks of unemployment benefits is more than enough. But these are not ordinary economic times. While there are no doubt some deadbeats who prefer collecting unemployment to earning a paycheck, I'm of the persuasion that far more people are are very willing and much prefer earning their money, yet simply cannot find work. Not just the good job they had, but anything they can qualify for that pays a living wage.

If I lost my job, downsized my house and transportation, gotten rid of all my luxuries (assuming some things I have may be perceived as such by a few), and then couldn't find work that pays enough to cover rent and food, I'd be inclined to make a career change to hunting down and killing bankers and politicians who created this mess. What's left to lose?

As for the Bush tax cuts, the way I see it, anyone who favors extending them is exhibiting the behavior of living beyond their means on credit. I'm a balanced budget advocate. Hank seems to think it's as simple as spending less. I don't agree that it's that simple. Although I favor low taxes, I think the U.S. let that train leave the station long ago. With high national debt and ongoing budget deficits, I think we're obliged to pay as we go and stop adding to the debt of the next generations of American taxpayers. Ya' know that high quality of life we've been striving for Hank? Forget it. The gov't. that represents us already spent it, and then some. And either we pay for it, or our kids and grandkids do.

Sg

SG: I really struggle with the unemployment issue... If there was a way to measure intent, sacrifice, desire -- then sure, I'd offer more than 99 weeks. But failing a good test, I think 99 weeks is a reasonable (if generous) line. 2 years + of looking for work, and not finding it? Maybe the carrot isn't helping at that point.

If it took me more than 99 weeks of searching to find a job, I'd turn to a life of crime to pay my bills and rationalize it by saying "they" made me do it.

No, it's more like I'll donate 40 billion over the next 20 or so years, because I make so much, writing off a couple billion a year is like you donating $100 to the Salvation Army.
WB has more than he can ever spend, instead of writing a check to uncle Sam, (since hes so concerned about the US economy) donates half his fortune to the Gates foundation over a period of time, securing his place as the most "generous" philanthropist in history, while saying everyone else needs to pay more. Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is. I don't care what he does with his money, even if it's writing off charitable contributions, just don't be a hypocrite and say I need to pay more.

Fascinating chart of the day, and notes:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/12/06/chart-of-the-day-u-s-taxes/

I'm really surprised nobody's done that yet.

Your goat on the rag again?

I've seen various flavors of this data charted, and they all point to the same conclusion. While spending is an issue, the real problem this nation faces is a revenue shortage. Which makes all the popular suggestions of cutting spending by reducing Social Security, or any other entitlements implausible; those measure will only compound the problem since they will inherently reduce revenue even more.

Don't know where you get that there is going to be a $700B rebate paid out to high income earners. There tax rates are going to be the same next year as they have been for the last 10 years. The government is not rebating any money. They are not getting a tax cut. It's been a great liberal talking point that confuses there uninformed base.

Kinda like how the R's keep calling a tax break that expires by its own terms the "biggest tax hike in history"...?

Fish on...

Todd