’)By most sane measures, the philanthropy that Warren Buffett has proposed is one for the ages. His fortune will likely save the lives of millions and affect the lives of billions. But you can never please some people, especially right wing wackos like Tony Perkins at the influential Family Research Council. In Monday’s email from the FRC, Perkins laments that Buffet’s money and the Gates Foundation is so focused on birth control
The press is gushing over Warren Buffett’s announcement that he and his wife will give the lion’s share of their immense wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A sizable chunk will also be given to foundations run by Buffett’s wife and children. Here at FRC we have long memories. Consequently, we suggest one charitable project the Buffetts’ have a moral obligation to fund. Back in the 1990s, the Buffett Foundation gave $2-3 million dollars to fund research and clinical trials needed to bring RU-486, the abortion pill, to market. Thanks to the Buffetts, and other promoters of abortion for population control, the drug was fast-tracked and approved under an order from President Clinton.
Now, you would think that after such invective, Perkins would announce some sort of initative to help the adoption of children or perhaps financial grants for poverty-stricken women who because of their finances and cultural situations, have more children than they can bear. Surely, the FRC and the rest of the right isn’t so shortsighted and dogmatic that they can’t see the virtue in giving people a chance?
Oh, right. Nevermind.
Billionaire Buffett Promises Fortune to Gates Foundation…
Warren Buffett is giving away the bulk of his fortune, more than $30 billion, to the Bill and Melind…
Warren Buffett Turns Against God …
God gave Buffett his wealth and now Buffett is turning his back on God by taking this gift and giving it away….
you would think that after such invective, Perkins would announce some sort of initative to help the adoption of children or perhaps financial grants for poverty-stricken women who because of their finances and cultural situations, have more children than they can bear.
Yeah,right, Oliver. The way you follow your criticisms of thr left with constructive alternatives.
“Invective?”
Are you sure you are using that word right, Oliver? You may want to find a more angry sounding quote. Especially since you’ve cut this one off and failed to give us an opportunity to see the entire email so we could decide for ourselves if it is “invective.”
What IS the project that Tony Perkins thinks Buffet should fund?
What does the rest of the email say?
Care to post or link to the rest of it?
One paragraph excoriating a guy for a world changing donation isn’t invective then I don’t know what is.
You can see it here. Perkins offers no alternative, just slams on Buffet.
in·vec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vktv)
n.
Denunciatory or abusive language; vituperation.
Denunciatory or abusive expression or discourse.
Oliver, I realize that you like to write in talking points and thus the language you use is very important to your style, but there are many times when the words you choose are much more reflective of you than those you write about. Thus using words like “invective” and “excoriating” are probably more indicative of your hate than of the message you write about.
Is there any more “invective” in that statement than any Media Matters article?
I know- it sounds more sinister when you say “invective”- it’s just your style.
Here’s the bigger question: why is Buffet giving his money away to a tax shelter and not keeping it in his portfolio so as to be subject to the death tax? Being that Buffet is such a proponent of the tax, you’d think he’d be the first to make sure he pays his fair share.
Dugger Jun 27th, 2006 at 10:13 am
I like Save s question. Progressives are really big on telling me I can t pass on the outcome of my life s work to my children without paying an onerous estate tax. Yet Buffet uses a tax dodge and gets praised. Gee, would almost make you expect that progressives anicipate benefitting from the billionaire s largesse.
LOL!! I look forward to hearing about Dugger and SaveFarris’ philanthropic strategies for the billions THEY build during their lifetimes …
in·vec·tive (-n-vk’t-v) pronunciation, n.
1. Denunciatory or abusive language; vituperation.
2. Denunciatory or abusive expression or discourse.
Nope. None there.
I like Save’s question. Progressives are really big on telling me I can’t pass on the outcome of my life’s work to my children without paying an onerous estate tax. Yet Buffet uses a tax dodge and gets praised. Gee, would almost make you expect that progressives anicipate benefitting from the billionaire’s largesse.
Dugger
From Best of the Web Today {6/26/2006}
Let me get this straight, Buffet avoided having to pay taxes by giving his money away to charitable organizations? That means that the estate tax does what it’s supposed to do: encourage distribution of vast wealth for the beteerment of society. And in this case it’s all been through private organizations and not the government. That’s a good thing, right?
It’s not exactly like Buffet’s children are going to be able to spend that money on themselves, right? Once it because part of the foundations’ endowments there are laws governing how it can be used and last I cheked minks and coke aren’t on the list of acceptable expenditures. Or is that how you idiots would rather the money be spent?
Oh, so if they are LEFTIST BILLIONAIRES then they shouldn’t pay a death tax! I get it…as long as it is philanthropy that is occuring anywhere but in the UNITED STATES, no taxes for you sonny boy….
Thanks roni, I always leave your posts a little more confused than I was before…..
frame,
It’s not my decision to make. Nor should it be yours, Oliver’s, or George W. Bush’s. It should be Mr. (and Mrs.) Buffet’s decision. You and I may not like what the kids might spend it on, but freedom means people get to decide what THEY want to do.
“It should be Mr. (and Mrs.) Buffet s decision.”
And Buffet didn’t decide to give all this money to charity?
Well, this is a subject that has lost it’s purpose thanks to the professional critics here at OW, but since we’re on the subject of the estate tax, here’s a few nuggets to digest with that kool-aid y’all have been drinking.
1) The estate tax affects only about 1% of all estates and will affect ever fewer as exemption levels increase. I sincerely doubt that any of you guys will be affected, but if you are, thank your lucky stars for your success. With a $2.5 million estate subject to estate tax, your kids will only pay about $100,000 to Uncle Sam, and with the most minimal of estate planning, you could have eliminated that altogether.
2) The proposed estate tax cuts are not offset by revenue from other sources or by cuts from other programs. Unchecked, this means $1 trillion that we’ll be passing on to all of our children over the next 10 years. Should we thank you now or later for this fiscal irresponsibility?
3) State estate tax laws are based on a percentage of Federal taxes meaning that state budgets have been and will continue to be even more strapped as estate tax exemption levels increase. Should I thank you now for school closures?
4) Estate taxes – and estate tax avoidance – are one of the primary reasons for a high level of charitable giving. I know this doesn’t motivate Warren Buffett, but between him and the rest of us are a lot of people who are motivated to give for the purpose of tax avoidance. What happens when those funds go away?
5) Keeping immense wealth in the hands of a landed aristocracy may be good politics in the short term while we still maintain the patina of a middle class, but how long can that continue before we turn into Brazil?
You’re either naïve or a numbskull, frame. I’m betting on the latter.
What does must continue to satisfy legal requirements qualifying my gifts as charitable and not subject to gift or other taxes [emphasis added for the reading impaired - fd] mean to you?
The article goes on to say
to z_adura, and all the other “tax those friggin’ rich guys” gang:
There are two issues. (I hope I can explain it plainly enough)
1) The wealth that isn’t taxed at the time of someone’s death is not a bunch of cash stuffed into trash bags for the rest of eternity.
It is real estate, art, jewelry, stocks, bonds, and yes, some cash, all of which will be put to use, put on exhibit, or spent or invested. It won’t be split 50 – 50 with the government, as if they are “dipping their beaks” in a gangster movie. There is no guarantee that what the government will do with the money is “better” than what the heirs to the estate will do. To the contrary, which of the heirs will be building a “bridge to nowhere” or another Federal office building named after Byrd in West Virginia?
2) The money belonged to the deceased, and it is his to declare where it goes. Why should property rights be revoked at someone’s death?
You mean endow the Special Olympics?
“which of the heirs will be building a bridge to nowhere or another Federal office building named after Byrd in West Virginia”
And which will blow their inheritance on cocaine, hookers, and contributions to the GOP? I think it’s safe to say that their last name will be Bush.
tomy, given what the Kennedy’s have done with their wealth, I would not be trying to compare our landed aristocracy (the Bush’s) , with yours (the Kennedy’s)
“Why should property rights be revoked at someone s death?”
Why should taxes?
frameone: Why should taxes?
You’re not serious, are you?
TomY: You mean Big Joe’s guilt payoff for lobotomizing his own daughter?
Wotta guy!
drpedro Jun 27th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Thanks roni, I always leave your posts a little more confused than I was before& ..
LOL … juuuust in case you’re still confused: the area with the dirt around it is a hole in the ground. You’re sitting on your ass.
Everyone is making the mistake of validating the wingnuts arguments. After reading the invective that the Cons are throwing out, I just threw up in my mouth alittle. Rather than giving away BILLIONS of dollars, it is merely a parlour trick that Buffet should be smited for Old Testament style. This ranks up there with hurting mentally retarded and abusing children. Giving away billions= BAD in the Cons mind. The FRC are the biggest embarassment to my Christian faith and while the language isn’t course, the aim is more than misguided. I will pray for Tony Perkins and some others on this site for chastising Buffets charitiy I know you guys are cynical but did it ever cross your mind he may be giving away the money not for personal gain but because he has a heart. Truly pathetic.
As is so common with Frank, he focuses on one point among a string of criticisms without even blinking an eye.
First, the rebuttal:
1) Rich people do all sorts of things with their money when they die from frivolous to philanthropic, but generally the latter is driven by legal tax avoidance. If art is given by bequest to the local gallery, it is for tax reasons more likely than not. However, your characterization that money isn’t stuffed into trash bags is actually kind of funny. In fact, there are indeed trusts in perpetuity, owned by entities beyond the estate tax system, in which the ultra-rich does stuff their cash. (Check out the Alaska or South Dakota Trust Companies some time to see how the other half hides their money.) I fail to see how rich people’s personal priorities are any more important than body armor for our soldiers or a reduction in the national debt we will pass on to our heirs.
2) Property rights do not end when the deceased dies. The tax is on the right to transfer property, and, as Warren Buffett has said, it helps us maintain an egalitarian society.
And as stated previously:
1) He incorrectly believes that the estate tax is a 50/50 split which is untrue. The real tax rate for the few estates even subject to tax, is 20%.
2) He never explains how he will pay the $1 trillion in extra tax burden over the next ten years that he will pass on to his own children and grandchildren.
3) He hasn’t come up with a solution to the state credit estate tax gap that threatens his own children and grandchildren’s education.
4) He seems totally unconcerned about the continuous loss of the middle class, the engine for our National success for 50 years running.
I am left to conclude that he doesn’t give a shit about his own heirs or anybody else’s so long as he gets to choke on his own stogies until he dies. But in the words of Gordon Gecko, “Greed is good,” right Frank?
I like Save s question. Progressives are really big on telling me I can t pass on the outcome of my life s work to my children without paying an onerous estate tax.
Let me explain how taxes work. When money is passed from one party to another, the government takes a portion of it as tax. In the case of the estate tax, the money is passed down from the original earner to the heir or heirs. Here, when the money is being passed down to the heirs, the heirs are the ones being taxed, not the deceased. So it’s just as much as “double taxation” as any other tax.
1) The wealth that isn t taxed at the time of someone s death is not a bunch of cash stuffed into trash bags for the rest of eternity.
So what? Assets can still be taxed.
2) The money belonged to the deceased, and it is his to declare where it goes. Why should property rights be revoked at someone s death?
What’s stopping you from using that line of reasoning when the person’s alive?
Yet Buffet uses a tax dodge and gets praised. Gee, would almost make you expect that progressives anicipate benefitting from the billionaire s largesse.
1. It’s a charity, dumbass.
2. I thought conservatives liked it when the wealthy evade taxes.
Oh, so if they are LEFTIST BILLIONAIRES then they shouldn t pay a death tax! I get it& as long as it is philanthropy that is occuring anywhere but in the UNITED STATES, no taxes for you sonny boy& .
Charital donations, even in the U.S. are tax deductable. And where did you get the “leftist” part from? (or possibly in this case, who’s ass did you pull it from)
I don’t get it. How is it tax evasion if he’s never going to see the money again? Charitable donations aren’t like a Swiss bank account or anything.
I swear, you people make this TOO easy.
Um, if I recall, Mrs. Buffett has shuffled off this mortal coil. She’s joined the choir invisible. She’s an ex-billionaire.
Perhaps Mr. Perkins could stick to criticizing the living.
1) He incorrectly believes that the estate tax is a 50/50 split which is untrue. The real tax rate for the few estates even subject to tax, is 20%.
“50 – 50″ was for example’s sake. If it were “90 – 10″ (10 to the government) it would still be wrong.
2) He never explains how he will pay the $1 trillion in extra tax burden over the next ten years that he will pass on to his own children and grandchildren.
The so – called “tax burden” you refer to treats government spending as mandatory, and presumes that there is absolutely way for government revenues to increase without estate taxes — both false assunptions.
3) He hasn t come up with a solution to the state credit estate tax gap that threatens his own children and grandchildren s education.
The states can read item #2: Cut taxes and fees, and reduce spending.
4) He seems totally unconcerned about the continuous loss of the middle class, the engine for our National success for 50 years running.
I didn’t know the middle class was either lost or getting lost. Someone has to occupy the median area of America’s income.
I’m concerned enough about the future to satisfy me. It is not necessary that I satisfy you. And, I don’t smoke.
Peedro, as usual, is up to his typical hijinx:
The so-called “death tax” is imposed on an estate passed to one’s heirs. There is no tax imposed on money spent, given away, or placed in a pile and set afire before one’s death.
That goes for left, right, or unconcerned.
Frank, you forget that you and I have been down this lonely road before. The last time of course you acknowledged that you didn’t have the faintest clue what in the budget could be cut. Find about $300 billion that doesn’t mortally wound some wide swath of the American public and we’ll talk.
I am sorry that you don’t care about other people. I am sorry that you can call yourself an American. You may be by birth or naturalization but not by spirit.
“You re not serious, are you?”
Um, yes.
What s stopping you from using that line of reasoning when the person s alive?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
z_adura: Find about $300 billion that doesn t mortally wound some wide swath of the American public and we ll talk.
How about collecting the tax itself. Look at the chunk of money taken out of the economy to be divided up between Lord – knows – who, and the Washington bureaucracy.
How would you feel if I took about 20% of your pay, and told you I had great plans for the money, and then on the way out the door, I put about 7% in my pocket?
I am sorry that you don t care about other people.
I really don’t care how you feel,but I do care about other people. I just prefer to spend my own time and money helping them, not the hard earned wages of others’
I am sorry that you can call yourself an American.
You can kiss my American ass, pal. It takes an enormous amount of gall to tell someone you’re sorry that they can call themselves an American.
How many wars did you fight in, you traitorous punk?
You may be by birth or naturalization but not by spirit.
And which “spirit” is that? The “Rich people owe it to all of us that they are rich, even though I can’t think of a damned thing I did to help them to get rich” spirit, or the “We’re all in this together, so rich people owe it to to all of us to chip in their fair share, even though they already pay more than I do, and I damn sure don’t want to pay anymore” spirit?
Which?
You liberals are monotonous and tedious.
“Tax the rich!” “Tax the rich!” “Tax the rich!” “Tax the rich!”
Frank, you are plainly too plump to get out of your Lazy-boy, so here is a link to the president’s Economic Report of the President 2006. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science;_ylt=AkczrgxawOtcc7iR_gyGzaOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-)
Rather than using trite banalities over and over and over again, go to Table B-78 and look HARD at the $318 billion you so caringly are unloading on the next generation. Next, take a look at Table B-84 to find some places to trim the fat. The last serious effort to reduce the size of Government was undertaken by VP Gore with the National Performance Review. As a result, 426,200 employees were cut from the payroll, yet it only cut just north of $13 billion a year (out of a $2.4 trillion budget.) There ISN’T $300 billion in Washington bureaucrats.
So, if you don’t want to maintain or raise taxes and are too lazy to find ways to reduce government spending, I am sorry, bud, but you aren’t a loyal American. You are a selfish, me-first Baby Boomer who doesn’t care if he shits in his children’s punch bowl. Go Frank.
You liberals are monotonous and tedious.
Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Tax the rich!
Frank, if we’re going to keep “rebuilding” Iraq (and maybe Iran before long), we gotta tax somebody. And the poor don’t have any money.
Once again, we see cons who probably have no financial security and will never pay a nickel of Federal inheritance tax defending the purses of Paris Hilton and Barbra Streissand.
Why tax the rich? To quote Willie Sutton “Because that’s where the money is”.
And white whale, I do notice what the trolls are doing. Warren Buffett giving away $30 Billion? That’s worthy of attack because it conflicts with their agenda. George Soros gave away over $280 million last year, but he supports liberal causes with some of that money, so he’s evil.
It’s really sad.
frameone: Um, you get stupider everyday. Soon you’ll need a tutor to be an idiot.
z_adura: Since you have no idea what size I am, or whether or not I own a laz – e boy, it’s safe to assume you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I don’t take my orders from you.
It’s the government’s job to reduce the tax burden, not increase it.
As long as mindless lefties like you pretend that a reduction in an increase is a “cut”, as long as economically illiterate liberal like you can’t see that if every single agency, department and bureau of the entire government — Executive, Legislative and Judicial — cut their budget by 2 cents on the dollar, in 5 years that would be a 10% reduction in outlays*
That’s more effective than losing 426,200 employees by attrition.
And, BTW, Brainiac, where did you get the $300 billion figure, anyway?
* You see, 5 X 2 = 10. Get it?
QuakerinaBasement Jun 28th, 2006 at 12:57 am
You liberals are monotonous and tedious.
Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Tax the rich!
Frank, if we re going to keep rebuilding Iraq (and maybe Iran before long), we gotta tax somebody. And the poor don t have any money.
Nice one, Quaker. The Iraqi invasion was to pay for itself, yes?
“I don t take my orders from you.”
That’s telling ‘em, Frank!
Frank, I will skip through all of your ad hominem flatulence and get to the point.
It s the government s job to reduce the tax burden, not increase it.
Where in the Consitution is that protection? You must be reading the Heritage Foundation Abridged Edition.
And, BTW … where did you get the $300 billion figure, anyway?
The federal deficit for 2005 was $318 billion and for 2006 is expected to be $423 billion. I thought giving you the opportunity to find $300 billion, while not bringing our budget into balance, might be an easier target for you.
Every single agency, department and bureau of the entire government Executive, Legislative and Judicial cut their budget by 2 cents on the dollar, in 5 years that would be a 10% reduction in outlays
It has never been clear to me whether you don’t like the services that the government provides or don’t think they provide them effectively. I am just inclined to believe that your 10% figure represents your adherance to political/ economic hacks like Thomas Sowell and not your understanding of how the government works.
Should you care to know, I would be happy to show you how cuts to the agency for which I used to work are having tremendous negative consequences on the U.S. at large, but hey another 10% wouldn’t hurt, right?
For the sake of not being thought a total prick, Frank, you should confine your arguments to rational debates and desist with the puerile name calling. If you are what you say you are, it is a disservice to your stature.
Sure thing Z_adura. Whatever you say… *
I don’t need to know all that much about how government runs, but I know this: My father was a civil servant for about 20 years of my life, and I spent 4 years in the Army, and 17 years as a civil servant myself, so I have a rough idea.
It has never been clear to me whether you don t like the services that the government provides or don t think they provide them effectively.
Perhaps that’s because you’ve never asked. Even though you still haven’t asked, I’ll tell you: I am absolutely certain that the government doesn’t provide services effectively. I’m guessing there’s probably a book a year on government waste. Given the fact that revenues increase every year there’s a tax cut (reduction in the tax rate), reducing spending by 2% a year would barely be noticed.
It s the government s job to reduce the tax burden, not increase it.
Where in the Consitution is that protection? You must be reading the Heritage Foundation Abridged Edition
No, actually, it’s right here:
Finally, who says the budget has to be balanced in one year? With tax cuts increasing revenues, and budget cuts slowly reducing outlays, the two numbers are sure to come together in 5 or 10 years. But this time, they will stay there, without tax increases.
* I’m inclined to believe this qualifies as an ad hominem attack:
economically illiterate liberal like you can t see that if every single agency, department and bureau of the entire government Executive, Legislative and Judicial cut their budget by 2 cents on the dollar, in 5 years that would be a 10% reduction in outlays*
* You see, 5 X 2 = 10. Get it?
Uh, no Frank.
If you cut all the budgets by two cents on the dollar, after five years you would reduce outlays by…two percent.
Lets try an example with just two years. My budget for Oreos (to pelt Republicans with!) is $1,000 a year. I decide to reduce my budget by two percent. How much do I save?
(.02 * $1000) (.02 * $1000) = $40
$40 is what percent of $2000?
2 percent.
I am thrilled that Buffet is giving his money away. I respect Bill and Melinda Gates and what they are doing.
And I am sure you conservatives should be happy, too. I thought you worshiped the rich, and here you are criticizing rich people. This is so ironic.
I guess it’s only hypocritical rich people that you like, the ones that are always talking about God and family but who are bone selfish.
Gee, Quaker, I didn’t know that you played childish games with math, as well as other people’s words.
Let’s say you have $1000 a year to spend on, say, Birkenstocks (for protest marches against repealing the Estate Tax).
So in year one you reduce that by 2%, or $20
In year two you reduce that by 2%, or $20
In year three you reduce that by 2%, or $20
In year four you reduce that by 2%, or $20
In year five you reduce that by 2%, or $20
Total reduction = $100, or 10%
Or, 5 years’ outlays by 2% each year, or 10%
I thought you worshipped the rich
Well, Hattie, you thought wrong.
That’s not what you said the first time, Frank. You wrote:
“cut their budget by 2 cents on the dollar, in 5 years that would be a 10% reduction in outlays*”
…when in fact you meant to say cutting the budget by 2 percent a year for five years! (Then, hilariously, you accused someone else of being “economically illiterate.” Haw!)
You’re still wrong. Let’s count the ways.
First, if you reduce the budget by 2 percent of a baseline year budget, your annual cuts gradually grow larger as a percentage of the current budget.
Using your numbers:
Year 1: Cut the $1,000 budget by $20, that’s 2 percent.
Year 2: Cut the $980 budget by $20, that’s 2.04 percent.
Year 3: Cut the $960 budget by $20, that’s 2.08 percent.
Year 4: Cut the $940 budget by $20, that’s 2.13 percent.
Year 5: Cut the $920 budget by $20, that’s 2.17 percent.
So in year 5, the budget is now $900 instead of the $1000 you started with in year 1, so you’ve reduced outlays for year 5 by 10 percent.
Which brings us to your next error: inflation.
Let’s say inflation runs a modest 3 percent per year.
In year 1, your $980 outlay is only $951 in constant dollars.
In year 2, your $960 outlay is worth just $903.
In year 3, your $940 outlay is worth just $858.
In year 4, the $920 outlay spends like $814.
In year 5, $900 will buy just $773 worth of goods and services.
You’ve reduced outlays by 10 percent over the base year, but you’ll slash services by almost 25 percent.
Baby, meet bathtub.
& when in fact you meant to say cutting the budget by 2 percent a year for five years!
Quaker:
Let’s say a comet is on its way to Earth, that’s the size of Texas, and the only way to stop it from hitting Earth is to send a team of roughneck oil riggers to the the comet, drill a deep hole in it, and plant an atomic bomb inside the comet and detonate it.
No, wait, that’s Armageddon
Look, if you knew what I meant, then what are you trying to do?
Still trying to get that payback for calling me a racist?
BTW, “Haw!” is usually preceded by “Hee”
Let s say inflation runs a modest 3 percent per year.
I have a better idea — the right one.
Inflation is almost directly related to government spending, because it puts “fake” dollars in the economy. Reducing government spending would, perforce, reduce inflation.
And, what does reduction in purchasing power have to do with reduction in budget outlays to a point where revenues exceed outlays?
And, what does reduction in purchasing power have to do with reduction in budget outlays to a point where revenues exceed outlays?
Everything.
The reduction in purchasing power means that if you cut nominal dollar outlays by 10 percent, you have to cut actual services by more than twice that amount.
Me, I’d start cutting with the bigger discretionary items. What about you?
But then I also harbor the silly notion that if you want revenues to exceed expenditures, it’s a good idea not to cut revenues first.
“Inflation is almost directly related to government spending, because it puts fake dollars in the economy.”
Close.
Inflation is almost directly related to government deficit spending, because it puts “fake” dollars into the economy.
If government revenues equal expenditures, government spending has no net effect.
idvcjm mxpjr ftmjprxa gbydjio ubjvhx dnqp kacuzfe