OBAMA, BUFFETT AND A NEW TAX "PROPOSAL"

 

TAX BILL FOR BUFFETT AND CRONIES

I am altering my post of 04/11 in which I recommended Republicans support Obama and Buffett but assure the "Buffett Rule" only applied to the top earners -- Buffett and his ilk. I realize the inevitability of such a tax being expanded to every tax payer except, of course, those of the dependent class who pay no taxes today. Therefore, I propose that Buffett and all of those who claim to "want to pay more taxes" (but don't write volunteer checks!) sign a pledge to that end. Then develop legislation to tax just those people, with specific names, and deny all of the shelters they use now -- foundations and all deductions. Illegal? Not to worry. Do it by executive order whereby everything is "legal."

The only people to whom this tax would be extended would be those who asked to be included -- call it an "opt-in with Buffett rule." Below is a modification of a post I made on October 11 to this effect. 

 If this seems silly, it may be, but it is no sillier than Obama's and Buffett's charade. But, it is honest!

 

04/11 PLAN MODIFIED
I suggest Republicans stop objecting to taxing Warren Buffett more and honor his "wishes." They should line up all of those high rollers who have supported Buffett.... yes, take names! Then introduce a bill to tax Buffett and all of his supporters specifically by name at 90% of all income over $3 million, including capital gains. Eliminate tax dodging facilities such as their foundations, which probably would not pass scrutiny for effectiveness anyway. Bill Gates has reported his foundation's funding for education has failed to improve education. Let's require an audit of all of Buffett's foundations. Now!
I will try to find a sponsor for such a bill. Maybe we can take up collection to rent a bus, or at least a stretch van, to tour the country to sell the plan. Or maybe Obama would let us tag along on his million-dollar bus. Or, maybe Buffett will fund our travels and expenses. We'll call the plan the The Buffett Hypocritic Tax in his honor (oops, must find a different word).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

I apologize for the structure of the post below, with no segmentation, but the system refuses to do it my way. To my post yesterday re AMR's chapter 11 filing relating my experiences over many years flying with AA, an AA pilot wrote a thoughtful comment that caused me to think a bit more about the precursors to conditions of their bankruptcy. Frankly, I have what is perhaps too much experience with trade unions and their excesses, but know less about others such as the airlines. After learning more about the negotiations of AA with their unions, I now think it's justifiable to post the comments below. I've seen too many industries destroyed by union excesses coupled with management incompetence in caving to excess demands. Start with coal (dead for many years), steel, textiles, shoes, electronics manufacturing, and more.  The Detroit 3 (once the big 3) deserves special mention. As their costs rose to $72/hour (fully loaded) and costs in the southern industry w
Read more

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

"Trying to persuade a prejudiced mind is as Sisyphean as trying to open a closed mind is Quixotic." Mann, May 2012 In a blog post herein below on May 1, 2013, I outlined what we who manage people and enterprises know as absolutes about performances of people who are put into management and supervisory positions for which they haven't requisite qualifications. For those who have progressed through several jobs to their level of incompetence, this is known as the Peter Principle as defined by Laurence J. Peter. In all likelihood, all who have managed people for any length of time have seen this principle played out. While Peter's observation applies to progression through multiple job levels, if a person is put into any job for which he is unqualified, the concept is also valid. Elective political positions is where I see this most often played out. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most significant example of this in my lif
Read more

ETHANOL -- The worst mandate ever gets even worse

When politicians get control of science and the inept or dishonest scientists, nothing good comes of it. There are many examples -- global warming (aka climate change) is the most prominent. The ethanol mandate, although a part of the climate change mania, stands on its own as arguably the most ridiculous mandate of all time. President Jimmy Carter, who was influenced by a misguided college professor, can be charged with the mistake of promulgating the ethanol mandate.  Of course, Al Gore is the politician who played the global warming issue like a drum and has benefited financially from it. Use of ethanol in motor fuel is not a net positive either in costs or in impact on the environment.... enormous hype to the contrary notwithstanding. Ethanol does not have the positive effect on the environment as touted. It has only about 60% of the specific energy of petroleum fuel, which begs use of more fuel to achieve the same energy as petroleum fuel. And, so it does. I have my own experie
Read more