Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktBut none of them is willing to make even a token gesture in order to demonstrate the sincerity of their position.
I hope the video embed works. Behind the firewall, I can’t check it:
If not, view it at The Daily Caller, where they say:
Two dozen “patriotic millionaires” traveled to the Capitol on Wednesday to demand that Congress raise taxes on wealthy Americans.
The Daily Caller attended their press conference with an iPad, which displayed the Treasury Department’s donation page, to find out if any of the “patriotic millionaires” were willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Hot Air also covers the video, where they say :
So what’s the lesson here? True patriots won’t volunteer, but insist on being drafted before coming to this nation’s service? That’s certainly a unique view of “patriotism,” isn’t it? That’s because “patriotism” isn’t what drives this message — it’s ideology. It would be equally “patriotic” to demand that the federal government return to a level of spending that we had just a few years ago, when the federal government spent one out of every five dollars rather than one out of every four in the American economy.
Listening to it, I don’t think these people are very serious about their cause, or they are all remarkably tone deaf. If they are super rich, they couldn’t be bothered to toss off a grand or two (at least while the cameras were rolling) in order to make a show of putting their money where their mouth is? I can’t listen to it now, but I recall one of them saying that everybody needs to pitch in, including the middle class (that will go over well) and another excusing themselves from making any sort of donation because they do “significant” private charity. Uh-huh.
Didn’t hear anything about what they were proposing. We’re they proposing pumping up capital gains, or personal income tax? And I’d be curious how hard any of these folks, who couldn’t even toss of some pocket change just to set a good example toward their cause, actually be impacted by the increased taxes. If they were arguing for increased income taxes, while they themselves profit mostly from capital gains, they could have all been entirely full of shiznits.
While I understand the argument that a correct policy prescription is collective, and that to make a difference the effort needs to be collective, as a layperson with no axe to grind against the super-wealty, all these rich guys come off (perhaps it’s the video editing, but it does not feel like that) as completely full of crap, and out to swindle regular old working joes like me, busy living the American dream of just getting by.
Whether the arguments themselves are inherently hypocritical, the unwillingness, to a man, for any of them to part with what would, quite honestly, be for them the equivalent of pocket change for you or me, just to make a point—that’s speaks volumes to me. And what it says is that this isn’t what they claim, that these people are full of crap, and this so-called tax on the rich is going to leave them largely untouched while funneling cash out of the pockets of the Kevins, Marks, Scotts, QBs, and lmsincas and even yellojkts of the world.
My sense of just their reactions in the video, and I can’t imagine how additional context would help, is that these folks are being dishonest or duplicitous. The most charitable interpretation I can imagine is that they are simply not serious, and posing for fun and for a war story to take back to their friends at the next cocktail party.
Patriotic millionaires. Hmmph.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
We argued the hypocrisy charge until we were blue in the face a few weeks ago. I just find the whole "why don't you just give your money to the government and let everybody else keep theirs" argument disingenuous at best. As if anybody not taking the standard deduction and then doubling the amount due somehow disqualifies them from discussing policy issues
LikeLike
I just find the whole "why don't you just give your money to the government and let everybody else keep theirs" argument disingenuous at best.I find it disingenuous that you consistently mischaracterize the argument. The "let everybody else keep theirs" part would be a fine point to make as far as I'm concerned, but the problem these "patriotic" phonies have is that they fail to pay up their own "fair share" to begin with. It is either unfair and unjust for them not to pay more, or it isn't. As if anybody not taking the standard deduction and then doubling the amount due somehow disqualifies them from discussing policy issuesSetting aside that you seem to have the argument reversed, I would like to know where there is an example of anyone saying these patriotic phonies are disqualified from discussing anything. We're simply pointing out that their own actions belie their self-congratulatory words.
LikeLike
The vid really is quite a brazen display of hypocrisy by these phonies. I love the guy who protests that taxes are not charity. No kidding, moron, you are one of the guys claiming you owe it as your fair share.The media was throwing around a survey that supposedly 70% of the rich think their taxes should be higher, yet each of these frauds lines up to say that voluntary payments won't solve any problems.These people are nothing but self-serving Pharisees.
LikeLike
They don't want to pay the additional taxes until they have drafted the legislation that gives them a tax advantage and/or subsidy elsewhere.
LikeLike
yello: We argued the hypocrisy charge until we were blue in the face a few weeks ago. I just find the whole "why don't you just give your money to the government and let everybody else keep theirs" argument disingenuous at best. Note that I did not present that argument (nor would I make it). My argument is specifically towards the tone-deafness of our wealthy friends arguing to raise their taxes, unwilling to make even a token gesture towards individual contribution to help bolster their point and given them additional credibility, and the sometimes quasi-bizarre responses from these "wealthy patriots". I also don't recall that being the point of the Daily Caller piece. Alas, I cannot watch or listen to it right now. qb: yet each of these frauds lines up to say that voluntary payments won't solve any problemsThey won't even make a token gesture, when the cameras are rolling, as a show of good faith, and a demonstration of their sincerity. Reminds me of con games (and personal experience) where people talk a really good and very believable game about how they're going to get me my money, or I'm going to double my money, or my money is safe, and they're going to do right by me. Yet when offered an immediate opportunity to make a token demonstration of their sincerity, they refuse. And then, not coincidentally, all their talk about me getting my share or getting my money back or whatever . . . that never comes true, either. Take away the hypocrisy argument for a moment and ask: if these people sincerely believe the answer is raising taxes on the rich, presented this straight forward opportunity to put a quarter in the tin cup as a show of good faith, they all refuse–doesn't something sound wrong? Granting that they are actually 100% right, that taxes need to be raised, and that it's absurd to the point of insanity to suggest that they could do anything on their own by sending a few more dollars to the treasury . . . don't their reactions seem a little, I dunno, off? In case anybody is unclear, I support a more progressive tax policy–specifically one that taxes the rich at higher rates. But the reaction of these patriotic millionaires makes me thing this whole thing was a sham, a crass manipulation staged for the rubes, and, if nothing else, their reactions seemed weird, off, and tone deaf. These rich, successful people are incapable of making a non-creepy, non-self-serving sounding argument when the cameras are rolling and their urging congress to raise taxes? Nova: They don't want to pay the additional taxes until they have drafted the legislation that gives them a tax advantage and/or subsidy elsewhere.Sure they don't. But, again, even so—what better response to that sort of confrontation than to whip out a credit card, put a couple of grand down (pocket change to the multi-multi-millionaire) and then make your point: "Look, I'm serious. The rich need to be doing more. We can afford to be doing more. And I'm happy to do what I just did–donate more to the federal treasury. Which I did on my taxes previously, and will likely do again this year, before Dec. 31st. Because that's how seriously I take my commitment to the fiscal well-being of our country. But just me . . . that's not enough. Everybody whose doing well–we should all be coming through. And it's not just about personal commitment, it's about good policy. And a good policy is one that . . . " etc., etc. Not: "Oh, no, I won't do that. No, I've already given to a charity. No, I already don't take some deductions that I could take, so that's like I've already donated . . ." None of them, in my opinion, had a good response. And all their responses was to put their hands over their wallet and flip the Federal Treasury the bird.
LikeLike
qb:I find it disingenuous that you consistently mischaracterize the argument. You beat me to it. I would like to know where there is an example of anyone saying these patriotic phonies are disqualified from discussing anything.You beat me to it again!Kevin:Note that I did not present that argument…Nor has anyone else. At least not anyone here.
LikeLike
FYI, I don't think the IRS can handle overpayments, which is what voluntarily paying a little extra amounts to. It applies the overage to other taxes owed, credits your future tax burden, or gives you a refund. That was a relative's experience when he accidentally overpaid.In any event, the whole show strikes me as silly. A person in the 1% has no more say as to whether his/her taxes are too high than does any other taxpayer.
LikeLike
MsJS,I don't doubt that the government can probably get confused by overpayments, but it took me 5 seconds to again find a Treasury page with simple instructions for giving money to the government.There's even an account specially set up for this purpose so that people can show their "patriotism."As for whether they have more say in whether their taxes are too high or low, it really doesn't matter since these are people claiming they aren't paying enough but are sneering at the suggestion that nothing stands in their way, and indeed the government welcomes donations. I would like to see the interviewer get specific with them and ask questions like, do you think the tax you paid for 2010 was less than your fair share? By how much? Would you like to pay the difference now that you see the government welcomes your donation?
LikeLike
"FYI, I don't think the IRS can handle overpayments, which is what voluntarily paying a little extra amounts to. It applies the overage to other taxes owed, credits your future tax burden, or gives you a refund. That was a relative's experience when he accidentally overpaid."You are correct on overpayments to the IRS, but there is a separate process to give a "gift" to the United States Treasury.Gifts to the United States Government
LikeLike
As is often the case in this repeated discussion, I am with Kevin. I will go further and say if they are an organized group, they should be making a donation as a group "visual".Not hypocrisy – not in my definition, anyway – but damned insensitive to the PR effect, and plain dumb.
LikeLike
Mark:Not hypocrisy – not in my definition, anyway Just to be clear (and given yello's characterization of the argument, it seems its not) the hypocrisy that I see lies not in the policies they advocate, but rather in their professed reason for advocating them.
LikeLike
MsJS: FYI, I don't think the IRS can handle overpayments, which is what voluntarily paying a little extra amounts to. It applies the overage to other taxes owed, credits your future tax burden, or gives you a refund. That was a relative's experience when he accidentally overpaid.The IRS is set up to take additional money, in the form of "voluntary taxes". You can do it right on the treasure website, which was what the Daily Caller was attempting to get the wealthy patriots to do. They were not, to a person, refusing to donate, a individuals, even one thin dime to the cause because they were worried it would confuse the IRS. The only plausible argument, to me, is that they are poseurs, and not serious about their argument. Once asked to contribute just a little extra money to help make their point, all these folks said no, no, no. That really doesn't help their argument. At all.
LikeLike
Scott: Not all these wealthy patriots were explicit in their reasons for advocating a particular policy. Some of them may not have been there making a moral argument, per se. In any case, their PR for their position is non-existent."Hey, I'd like to make you people look greedy and insincere and up to something, could you possible help me with that? And maybe like you're lying, and you've got something to hide? Is that good?""Why, sure, we'd love to. All of us! Isn't that right, guys?"
LikeLike
I just find the concept of requiring earnest money as proof of seriousness to be ludicrous. If I advocate raising the gas tax to finance more roads, should I be sending a nickel a gallon to the DOT just to show I'm willing to bear the cost?
LikeLike
These a-holes structure their income to avoid taxes. I guarantee that every last one does not draw even most of their yearly revenue from a regular income. They do that on purpose to avoid taxes. Why not just change their revenue stream to recieve all compensation through regular income, thereby they will be taxed more. Wouldnt even require changing the law. The real question is why don't they do that?
LikeLike
the objection here is that in advocating for a change in policy, they are not availing themselves of all currently existing means to achieve their goal. the want the government to have more revenue and think they should personally pay more. congratulations. existing law lets them do that.
LikeLike
I think my taxes should be higher, but will not write a check for more until the law changes. I don't like paying taxes, but understand that they are the price we pay for a (somewhat) civilized society.Like for any other product, I'm not going to voluntarily pay more just because I think I'm being undercharged.
LikeLike
Yello, I'm predisposed to be on these rich patriots side, but their responses make me cringe. No doubt, it shouldn't require earnest money to prove your sincere about a policy, but their reactions make me shake my head. Right or wrong, it's a deeply tone deaf response. If they want to convince anybody not already firmly on their side, anyway.If tossing an extra nickle in the jar might help make your gas tax argument, would you do it?
LikeLike
Bsimon: all I'm saying is watch the video, and tell me that there's not a better approach. These guys make very poor standard bearers. When given the option to wear an armband in support of a cause, you refuse because it won't accomplish anything? With the cameras rolling?
LikeLike
NoVaHockey,That was a particularly brutal ad hominum attack on bsimon's point. I'm not sure it's fair to paint people in favor of government taxes as fans of eugenics.
LikeLike
nah, my criticism is of holmes, not bsimon, and the underlying nothing. but if you think my remarks should be taken down, I'll delete them and offer my apologies.
LikeLike
i'll take it down anyway and try to re-work my thought/point.
LikeLike
yello:If I advocate raising the gas tax to finance more roads, should I be sending a nickel a gallon to the DOT just to show I'm willing to bear the cost?No. But if you frame youra advocacy in terms of fairness, justice, or a moral imperative, then yes you should. You seem intent on ignoring it, but the claimed reason for the advocacy is rather important to the charge against them.
LikeLike
Related article about the nifty trick of borrowing against unrealized stock appreciation to avoid a taxable event. If the rates go up, I expect more of this.U.S. Billionaires Avoid Reporting Cash to IRS
LikeLike
bsimon:I don't like paying taxes, but understand that they are the price we pay for a (somewhat) civilized society.Like for any other product, I'm not going to voluntarily pay more just because I think I'm being undercharged. I don't think your "price" metaphor is very useful. If you think you are being "undercharged", you must think you are getting more civilization than your payment deserves.What I suspect you actually mean is that you are getting exactly the civilization you are paying for, but you want more. Unfortuantely, you are not able to buy more on your own, so there is no point in trying to unless you are able to force others to help you finance it.
LikeLike
How about this:We should be careful in how much we fork over to the feds, as their ideas on what constitutes "civilization" often are flawed. A desire to pay more won't result in "more civilization"
LikeLike
I take issue with the whole "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" meme to the extent that the financing of true public goods, such as bridges, roads, the FDA and the military is conflated with entitlement spending.
LikeLike
Actually, Scott, we're all paying less than is being spent on our behalf. Even if we cut revenue to match expenses, there's still that small matter of paying down the debt. The people who've enjoyed the benefits of that deficit spending ought to be the ones who pay it off.
LikeLike
NoVA,That is a lot less inflammatory. The proper size of government is one debate. How best to finance it is a different one. The tax system can be made more equitable while reducing the size of government. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.ScottC,You throw around the moral imperative argument a lot. A rich person not voluntarily paying additional taxes is not quite the same level of hypocrisy as say an abolitionist owning slaves.It is a question of fairness and demanding that rich people pay at least the same percentage of taxes as middle class people seems hardly as radical and confiscatory as it is made to seem.
LikeLike
"A desire to pay more won't result in "more civilization""You may be confusing a desire for an equitable splitting of costs with a 'desire to pay more'. I can't imagine anyone wants to pay more.
LikeLike
bsimon:Actually, Scott, we're all paying less than is being spent on our behalf. Good point. I think we should stop spending.
LikeLike
Jnc4p – good luck nailing down what exactly constitutes entitlement spending. Given that roads, bridges, law enforcement, etc are expenses incurred on our behalf, some might count them as entitlements.
LikeLike
" Good point. I think we should stop spending."Someone will still be on the hook for the debt…
LikeLike
"Jnc4p – good luck nailing down what exactly constitutes entitlement spending. Given that roads, bridges, law enforcement, etc are expenses incurred on our behalf, some might count them as entitlements. "The distinction is easy. If everyone can use it or collectively benefits from it, it's a shared public good. If you are taking money from me to cut a check to someone else or provide them with a private benefit (i.e. healthcare), it's an entitlement.
LikeLike
jncp4,The New Deal programs were installed in part as a civilizing safety net. The porosity of the net and the beneficence of landing in it can be debated, but having a safety net is indeed in and of itself 'civilized'. Few people want to let people starve under any circumstance.
LikeLike
"The people who've enjoyed the benefits of that deficit spending ought to be the ones who pay it off. "That would not be the 1% or even the 10%. Most of that spending went for entitlements for the other 90%. The disconnect between who pays the taxes and who receives the benefits of public spending is wide and growing.
LikeLike
"if you are taking money from me to cut a check to someone else or provide them with a private benefit (i.e. healthcare), it's an entitlement." while I agree with this, i've often heard of healthcare is a collective benefit. if we don't pay for health care, I'll have to step over the mound of corpses that will accumulate.
LikeLike
yello:You throw around the moral imperative argument a lot.I'mn not the one throwing it around. People like Warren Buffet and Elizabeth Warren are. I am merely responding to their use of such an argument. Your objection to my criticims of them ignores the fact that they are throwing it around.A rich person not voluntarily paying additional taxes is not quite the same level of hypocrisy as say an abolitionist owning slaves.I agree. Did someone say otherwise?It is a question of fairness and demanding that rich people pay at least the same percentage of taxes as middle class people seems hardly as radical and confiscatory as it is made to seem.I didn't say anything about something being "radical" or "confiscatory". All I have said it that a rich person who truly thinks that they aren't paying their "fair share" would be willing to do so regardless of what the government forces them to do. When they are not, I begin to doubt the sincerity of their beliefs about what is or is not "fair".
LikeLike
Scott,Let's ignore the moral failings of the Patriotic Millionaires. Is Warren Buffett correct or not? Under what circumstances should a rich person pay less in tax than a middle-class person?
LikeLike
bsimon:Someone will still be on the hook for the debt… True. But before you can get out of a hole you have to first stop digging.
LikeLike
If I advocate raising the gas tax to finance more roads, should I be sending a nickel a gallon to the DOT just to show I'm willing to bear the cost?You just continue to attack straw men. These people are arguing that they aren't paying their fair and just share.These a-holes structure their income to avoid taxes.Indeed, the bracing truth of these scoundrels (not because they minimize taxes but are hypocritical about it).You may be confusing a desire for an equitable splitting of costs with a 'desire to pay more'. I can't imagine anyone wants to pay more.On the contrary, that's exactly what these Buffetts and mini-Buffetts are saying.The people who've enjoyed the benefits of that deficit spending ought to be the ones who pay it off.Something tells me that the beneficiary constituencies of the Democratic Party aren't going to be doing that any time soon. Is that who you had in mind? Because I am quite certain that I've paid a lot more than my fair share already.
LikeLike
""if you are taking money from me to cut a check to someone else or provide them with a private benefit (i.e. healthcare), it's an entitlement."while I agree with this, i've often heard of healthcare is a collective benefit. if we don't pay for health care, I'll have to step over the mound of corpses that will accumulate. "My primary point is to argue against the narrative that true public goods are the drivers of our deficits and thus require higher taxes. This is a staple of the Elizabeth Warren argument that "we are all in this together and no one got rich on their own". This argument is incorrect. You can easily fund all domestic discretionary spending and all military spending with existing taxation levels. The drivers of the growing deficits are entitlements, specifically Medicare so the real argument is how much higher we should raise taxes to provide guaranteed, unlimited Fee for Service medical care to Medicare recipients. When you break down asset and income distribution by age group, this argument is less than compelling. And lest my argument be misconstrued, I'm in favor of a Paul Ryan like fixed contribution voucher to be used in a regulated exchange that covers the entire health insurance market ala Wyden Bennett, not abolition of any and all Federal subsidies.Healthy Americans ActMore broadly, I believe that entitlement spending should have to be appropriated annually just like any other Federal budget request, and how much is spent on Medicare, etc weighed against other competing interests such as the FDA, transportation etc.
LikeLike
"Under what circumstances should a rich person pay less in tax than a middle-class person? "I suggest you be more precise in your framing and state this as:"Under what circumstances should a rich person pay a lower tax rate than a middle-class person? "Even with current rates, in absolute dollars I expect Buffet pays more than his secretary.
LikeLike
There are many good policies within the Wyden-Bennett Act that should have been incorporated into the ACA, chief among them portability.
LikeLike
jnc4p,Concur. And I notice you did not answer the correctly reformulated version of the question:Under what circumstances should a wealthy person pay a lower rate expressed as effective percentage of gross income than a middle class taxpayer?
LikeLike
yello:Let's ignore the moral failings of the Patriotic Millionaires. Let's not, because their moral failings (as judged by their very own professed standards) is precisely what substantiates the charge of hypocrisy against them.Is Warren Buffett correct or not?About what? That he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary? No, he is almost certainly not correct about it. And if he is, then it is within his power to correct that situation.Under what circumstances should a rich person pay less in tax than a middle-class person?I presume by "tax" you mean tax rate. If so, the answer is under no circumstances, just as I think under no circumstances should a middle class person pay a lower tax rate than a rich person. As I have said many times, each person should pay the same flat tax rate that everyone else pays.
LikeLike
"Under what circumstances should a wealthy person pay a lower rate expressed as effective percentage of gross income than a middle class taxpayer? "I'm a flat taxer. Everyone pays the same rate on all income, regardless of source. No deductions or exemptions.
LikeLike
"The disconnect between who pays the taxes and who receives the benefits of public spending is wide and growing."Depends on how you measure. Do the job-creators benefit from spending on schools? Yes, they do. The way to create personal wealth is to find a way to profit from others' labor. As the skills you're buying increase, so does the opportunity for markup. For instance, a good lawyer is limited in how much time she can bill; theoretically around 2000 hours per year. To get around that defacto salary cap, the hire junior associates, paralegals and the like – billing more for their time than those resources cost the firm. As the quality of work output from those resources increases, billing rates – and profits – rise as well.
LikeLike
"Let's not, because their moral failings (as judged by their very own professed standards) is precisely what substantiates the charge of hypocrisy against them."Reminds me of the liberals' criticism of war supporters who didn't sign up or send their kids. ?
LikeLike
""The disconnect between who pays the taxes and who receives the benefits of public spending is wide and growing."Depends on how you measure. Do the job-creators benefit from spending on schools?"This would be the conflation of true public goods, like schools with entitlement spending that I was referring to previously. Federal education spending isn't what's driving the deficit and can be easily funded within existing federal income taxation levels.
LikeLike
bsimon:Reminds me of the liberals' criticism of war supporters who didn't sign up or send their kids.I wonder why it would remind you of that. An equivalent argument to the one presented by the two Warrens would be advocating a draft on the basis that one is morally obliged to defend the nation, but then refusing to join voluntarily. I am not aware of anyone who advocated a draft at all, much less did so on moral grounds but then refused to join voluntarily.BTW…I believe you have to be 18 to join the armed forces. A parent is not legally able to "send" their 18 year old kid into the service. They are free to join or not, based on their own desires, not those of their parents.
LikeLike
I wonder why it would remind you of that.Because the style of the piece directly apes Michael Moore's use of the same tactics in Fahrenheit 9/11.
LikeLike
yello:Because the style of the piece…I believe he was talking about the content of a statement I made, not the style in which the above video was made.
LikeLike
If the style directly apes Moore, the substance doesn't, since these sois-disant patriotic millionaires in fact are behaving in direct contradiction to their stated moral principles, while that is hardly the case with Moore's hackish attacks (as Scott has already explained).
LikeLike
"I believe you have to be 18 to join the armed forces. A parent is not legally able to "send" their 18 year old kid into the service. They are free to join or not, based on their own desires, not those of their parents."I'ts not important; but the way I recall it, many people (moore & others) questioned whether war supporters – or congresspeople voting for the war – were encouraging their family members to serve. You're correct, of course, that children cannot serve, though why you thought that needed to be mentioned escapes me.
LikeLike
"This would be the conflation of true public goods, like schools with entitlement spending that I was referring to previously. Federal education spending isn't what's driving the deficit and can be easily funded within existing federal income taxation levels."That makes sense, thought there does not seem to be agreement on what, exactly, make up 'entitlements'. Given the problem at hand, my understanding is that the SS problem can be fixed with relatively minor tweaks, as has been done in the past; perhaps raise the contribution cap, fiddle with the inflation formula, etc. The Medicare growth rate is a tougher nut to crack. Of course, much of the ACA was intended to address some of those issues; I believe the President referred to that as 'bending the cost curve'.
LikeLike
bsimon:I'ts not important; but the way I recall it, many people (moore & others) questioned whether war supporters – or congresspeople voting for the war – were encouraging their family members to serve.They did. Which bears no resemblence whatsoever to my statement which you said reminded you of this.You're correct, of course, that children cannot serve, though why you thought that needed to be mentioned escapes me.I thought it needed to be said because you seemed to be under the impression that a parent could "send" their kid to join the armed service, but it is no longer up to a parent to make decisions on behalf of their kids once they turn 18.
LikeLike
"Which bears no resemblence whatsoever to my statement which you said reminded you of this."Huh. We have different impressions. Go figure."you seemed to be under the impression that a parent could "send" their kid to join the armed service"Sorry for the misunderstanding. What I was referring to was what I thought was the commonly held experience that parents often have significant influence over what choices their children consider making. I know its a mistake to assume that our own experience is representative of others'; yet I've gone and made it again. I'll try to refrain from doing so in the future.
LikeLike