American Billionaires are Dumb archived
drummerboy said:
good article on the mindset of the .01%
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/08/121008fa_fact_freeland?currentPage=all
Leon Cooperman, the main character in the article, donated a ton of money to the JCC in WO. It's just amazing the kind of self-delusion these guys operate under.
What does donating a ton of money to the JCC have to do with self-delusion?
BCC said:
drummerboy said:
good article on the mindset of the .01%
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/08/121008fa_fact_freeland?currentPage=all
Leon Cooperman, the main character in the article, donated a ton of money to the JCC in WO. It's just amazing the kind of self-delusion these guys operate under.
What does donating a ton of money to the JCC have to do with self-delusion?
Well, the New Yorker story kind of spells that out, doesn't it?
Admittedly, I'm unsure. But this article makes me think.
Defending the Electoral College.
RVM said:
Every Progressive *must* favor abolishing the ELectoral College hypothetically (there is no chance of it happening, though). The EC overweights the interests of residents of smaller states which are typically rural and typically not progressive. This isn't even up for argument, really.
Defending the Electoral College.
gibberellin said:
BCC said:
drummerboy said:
good article on the mindset of the .01%
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/08/121008fa_fact_freeland?currentPage=all
Leon Cooperman, the main character in the article, donated a ton of money to the JCC in WO. It's just amazing the kind of self-delusion these guys operate under.
What does donating a ton of money to the JCC have to do with self-delusion?
Well, the New Yorker story kind of spells that out, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. In a very long article there is this paragraph re: donating money:
'Many billionaires have come to view charity as privatized taxation, paid at a level they determine, and to organizations they choose. “All things being equal, you’d rather have control of the money than the government,” Cooperman said. “Even if you’re giving it away, you’d rather give it away the way you want to give it away rather than the way the government gives it away.” Cooperman and his wife focus their giving on Jewish issues, education, and their local community in New Jersey, and he is also setting up a foundation that will allow his children and grandchildren to support their own chosen causes after he dies.'
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/08/121008fa_fact_freeland#ixzz2C2OPOphu
You may not like the tax code but in what way is Cooperman deluding himself?
"Many billionaires have come to view charity as privatized taxation, paid at a level they determine, and to organizations they choose."
That's delusional. Charitable giving is most definitely not a form of "privatized taxation". The author of the article goes on to note,
"The middle class anonymously and nervously pays its thirty-five per cent to the I.R.S., while the super-rich pay fourteen per cent, and are then praised for giving five or ten per cent more to pet causes, often with the perk of having their names engraved above the door."
That's delusional. Charitable giving is most definitely not a form of "privatized taxation". The author of the article goes on to note,
"The middle class anonymously and nervously pays its thirty-five per cent to the I.R.S., while the super-rich pay fourteen per cent, and are then praised for giving five or ten per cent more to pet causes, often with the perk of having their names engraved above the door."
As long as you can still deduct c4 contributions it's pretty damn close to privatised taxation.
kathy said:
Many of the Republican electors selected in primaries and caucuses around the country were actually pledged to Ron Paul. Now that they can't contribute to a Republican presidency, I will be interested to see how many of the 202 Republican votes in the Electoral College are actually cast for Romney.
Electors are not selected in primaries or caucuses. You are confusing Electors with Convention delegates.
nohero said:
I was anticipating that one of the regular Hannity or Levin fans on this board would start telling us about how President Obama was being "arrogant" given the margin of his victory.
They are conspicuous by their absence.
No one is required to give their money away. We are required to spend it for things we want or to pay taxes to various levels of Government in order for them to provide services we require.
When someone freely gives to a charity he is entitled to consider it self taxation, an expenditure he could just as easily not make.
Feel free to respond but frankly I don't consider it worth any further semantic gymnastics by either of us.
When someone freely gives to a charity he is entitled to consider it self taxation, an expenditure he could just as easily not make.
Feel free to respond but frankly I don't consider it worth any further semantic gymnastics by either of us.
ctrzaska said:
As long as you can still deduct c4 contributions it's pretty damn close to privatised taxation.
Oh, bull cr*p. Giving a couple of million to the ballet is "just like" paying taxes? I don't think so.
--you personally decide how much you're giving
--you personally decide where the contribution goes
--you can not give the following year if you so choose
--in many cases, perks can be attached to the "gift" (think, not just names on walls or reserved seats but kids admitted to elite schools)
The point is, wealthy people can give charitably and pay more taxes. It's not an either/or. The same people are benefitting more from public infrastructure (courts, roads, education, you name it) than your lowly clerk.
"I deserve to pay half of what you're paying in taxes because I donate to the ballet."
Sheesh. Delusional doesn't begin to touch it.
BTW: I do well enough to have to calculate the AMT every year. When Mr. Obama talks about ending the Bush tax cuts for 250k and above, he's talking about me. And I don't consider my charitable giving "privatized taxation" by any means, and don't believe I deserve any public credit or recognition beyond the pleasure of being able to support organizations that are important to me.
BCC said:
drummerboy said:
good article on the mindset of the .01%
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/08/121008fa_fact_freeland?currentPage=all
Leon Cooperman, the main character in the article, donated a ton of money to the JCC in WO. It's just amazing the kind of self-delusion these guys operate under.
What does donating a ton of money to the JCC have to do with self-delusion?
er, nothing? Simply pointing out a local connection. The delusions are explained in the article.
The Electoral College only overweights the influence of the less populated States if one ignores the fact that there are fifty sovereign States united in their purpose and goals.RVM said:
Every Progressive *must* favor abolishing the ELectoral College hypothetically (there is no chance of it happening, though). The EC overweights the interests of residents of smaller states which are typically rural and typically not progressive. This isn't even up for argument, really.
Each of the SeveralStates agreeing to our Constitution gave up some degree of their sovereignty to acquire the benefits afforded by union of the Several States. Part of the deal was that every State got a seat at the table - in the form of equal suffrage in the Senate; their concomitant representation in the Electoral College; and even their role in deciding the Presidency should the Electoral College be unable to determine a winner.
But hey! You may have a quite different idea of the Union than I. I'm told a lot of people do.
And not for nothing; you may very well get that which you wish, in the form of the proposed interstate compact. While it looks like an end run to me; if it gets into the end zone - and neither the line judge (Congress) nor the referee (our Supreme Court) calls a foul - it's a score.
On the other hand; if your criticism lies primarily in the fact that less populated States are frequently not progressive - I got nuttin.
TomR
P.s., Sorry for belaboring the sports metaphor. But the "end run" criticism of the popular vote interstate compact is just so tortured that it deserves the swift execution I hope I gave it.
TomR-
I understand how we got here and I understand the Ratification Dilemna.
I understand how we got here and I understand the Ratification Dilemna.
drummerboy said:
good article on the mindset of the .01%
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/08/121008fa_fact_freeland?currentPage=all
Leon Cooperman, the main character in the article, donated a ton of money to the JCC in WO. It's just amazing the kind of self-delusion these guys operate under.
Just read this. Unbelievable.
What's so mind-boggling is that they think that having that type of money makes them smarter and more important than everyone else.
Well, money = power, doesn't it?
So much in that article made me cringe. The part where he gives his 14 year old grand-daughter's book of poems to the Obamas and then grouses publicly because the Obamas fail to send him handwritten thank you notes; the way he looks down his nose at the "poor" cardiologist and his physician wife because they only have 10 mil in the bank to retire on; "I probably make more than a thousand dentists summed up"; and then the piece de resistance, the comparison of Obama to Hitler (and this from a Jew with roots in Poland).
Everytime he opens his mouth, something ugly hops out.
His wife seems like a decent person.
So much in that article made me cringe. The part where he gives his 14 year old grand-daughter's book of poems to the Obamas and then grouses publicly because the Obamas fail to send him handwritten thank you notes; the way he looks down his nose at the "poor" cardiologist and his physician wife because they only have 10 mil in the bank to retire on; "I probably make more than a thousand dentists summed up"; and then the piece de resistance, the comparison of Obama to Hitler (and this from a Jew with roots in Poland).
Everytime he opens his mouth, something ugly hops out.
His wife seems like a decent person.
Tom_R said:
Each of the SeveralStates agreeing to our Constitution gave up some degree of their sovereignty to acquire the benefits afforded by union of the Several States. Part of the deal was that every State got a seat at the table - in the form of equal suffrage in the Senate; their concomitant representation in the Electoral College; and even their role in deciding the Presidency should the Electoral College be unable to determine a winner.
But hey! You may have a quite different idea of the Union than I. I'm told a lot of people do.
Except for the original states, and perhaps Texas, the other states didn't "give up" anything - they were elevated to the status of statehood (that is, they "got something") when admitted as a state.
One could also argue that any and all states of the Confederacy also didn't voluntarily "give up" anything after the Civil War, they were given something, that it, reinstatement as a state.
gibberellin said:
Well, money = power, doesn't it?
So much in that article made me cringe. The part where he gives his 14 year old grand-daughter's book of poems to the Obamas and then grouses publicly because the Obamas fail to send him handwritten thank you notes; the way he looks down his nose at the "poor" cardiologist and his physician wife because they only have 10 mil in the bank to retire on; "I probably make more than a thousand dentists summed up"; and then the piece de resistance, the comparison of Obama to Hitler (and this from a Jew with roots in Poland).
Everytime he opens his mouth, something ugly hops out.
His wife seems like a decent person.
What I always wonder is this: Do billionaires become this way because of their money, or did they become billionaires because they are this way?
gibberellin said:
ctrzaska said:
As long as you can still deduct c4 contributions it's pretty damn close to privatised taxation.
Oh, bull cr*p. Giving a couple of million to the ballet is "just like" paying taxes? I don't think so.
--you personally decide how much you're giving
--you personally decide where the contribution goes
--you can not give the following year if you so choose
--in many cases, perks can be attached to the "gift" (think, not just names on walls or reserved seats but kids admitted to elite schools)
The point is, wealthy people can give charitably and pay more taxes. It's not an either/or. The same people are benefitting more from public infrastructure (courts, roads, education, you name it) than your lowly clerk.
"I deserve to pay half of what you're paying in taxes because I donate to the ballet."
Sheesh. Delusional doesn't begin to touch it.
BTW: I do well enough to have to calculate the AMT every year. When Mr. Obama talks about ending the Bush tax cuts for 250k and above, he's talking about me. And I don't consider my charitable giving "privatized taxation" by any means, and don't believe I deserve any public credit or recognition beyond the pleasure of being able to support organizations that are important to me.
I was responding to the full sentence in the article and cited above, which speaks to what you're saying: 'Many billionaires have come to view charity as privatized taxation, paid at a level they determine, and to organizations they choose.'
Do you honestly think that charitable giving wouldn't decrease if rates at the top jumped? At a certain level it IS an either/or, and it's not hard to see why one would prefer a pedestal for their trouble than a thankyou from the IRS. Do I link the two in my house? No. And for the record (not that I think it's relevant), I've filed the 6251, and I don't oppose elimination/reduction of tax cuts at the upper end of the spectrum. That I think it won't do a whole hell of a lot unless spending is curtailed significantly is a whole other debate.
But if we need to update the interstate highway system and repair bridges, a big fat donation to the ballet won't be helpful.
shoshannah said:
But if we need to update the interstate highway system and repair bridges, a big fat donation to the ballet won't be helpful.
Not to mention that any deduction on the big fat donation to the ballet means that the rest of us spent some money on the ballet, instead of on updated highways or repaired bridges.
shoshannah said:
What I always wonder is this: Do billionaires become this way because of their money, or did they become billionaires because they are this way?
I think it's both. Naturally, you have to be a pretty competitive person to earn on that level. But then the proximity to power and other extremely wealthy people warps your world view.
ctrzaska said:
Do you honestly think that charitable giving wouldn't decrease if rates at the top jumped?
Is that the issue here? I thought it was about solving our so called "fiscal crisis".
Look, the essential nature of taxation is that it's compulsory--not voluntary, not based on whims, not designed to make anyone look important. Calling charitable donation "self imposed taxation" overlooks all of that.
Oh yes, if you just remove the fact that taxation is compulsory whereas donation is voluntary, they are exactly alike, or at least, in your words, "damned close".
Nowhere in that article was a mention of solving the fiscal crisis, particularly via higher taxation on the 1%, given it was centrally about (whether one agrees or not) Obama as anti-business/anti-1%. And while only a fool would argue that there's no difference between compulsory tax-paying and voluntary charitable giving, this is not to say that there isn't an inextricable link between the two, particularly when the voluntary payment partially reduces the compulsory one. That's all I'm saying.
The powerbrokers cited in the article take it one step further as viewing the gov't as Robin Hood, giving tax dollars away as they see fit-- a practice they feel they are better positioned to dictate as long as the gov't doesn't come looking for more to spend, whether hat-in-hand or wagging a finger. WHile I think that takes it a bit too far, the reductive argument that it is somehow a choice between bridges and the ballet is absurd.
The powerbrokers cited in the article take it one step further as viewing the gov't as Robin Hood, giving tax dollars away as they see fit-- a practice they feel they are better positioned to dictate as long as the gov't doesn't come looking for more to spend, whether hat-in-hand or wagging a finger. WHile I think that takes it a bit too far, the reductive argument that it is somehow a choice between bridges and the ballet is absurd.
ctrzaska said:
WHile I think that takes it a bit too far, the reductive argument that it is somehow a choice between bridges and the ballet is absurd.
No, not at all. If the 1% are saying that they impose their own "tax" through charitable giving the roads don't get done. Unless, perhaps, we convert the interstate highway system into a 501(c)3 and name the roads after their benefactors instead of dead presidents. "Take the Trump Bridge to the Leon Cooperman Thruway."
The roads don't get done because someone has prioritized needs vs wants and made a decision to spend funds elsewhere. Call it bombers vs bridges, then.
LOST said:
kathy said:
Many of the Republican electors selected in primaries and caucuses around the country were actually pledged to Ron Paul. Now that they can't contribute to a Republican presidency, I will be interested to see how many of the 202 Republican votes in the Electoral College are actually cast for Romney.
Electors are not selected in primaries or caucuses. You are confusing Electors with Convention delegates.
Oops, sorry, I think I was a little sleep-deprived when I wrote that.
Are we really worried about charitable donations going down?? If we were to track charitable donations starting in say 1990 to now, how would it look in todays dollars? Was there a HUGE jump up in donations from Clinton era to Bush era? Who cares!!!! The fat cats have enough to dump on elections, I think they can pay their share of taxes.
ctrzaska said:
Nowhere in that article was a mention of solving the fiscal crisis, particularly via higher taxation on the 1%, given it was centrally about (whether one agrees or not) Obama as anti-business/anti-1%.
OK, so why are all these rich guys patting themselves on the back for their charitable giving and redefining it as a "self tax" unless they want to escape higher taxes?
And while only a fool would argue that there's no difference between compulsory tax-paying and voluntary charitable giving
Uh huh. Well, that's what these guys are arguing.
this is not to say that there isn't an inextricable link between the two, particularly when the voluntary payment partially reduces the compulsory one. That's all I'm saying.
The link is "inextricable" only if the person doing the giving is motivated first and foremost, and perhaps exclusively, by the need to reduce his/her taxes. We're talking about billionaires here. It is truly sad that these people feel "compelled" to reduce charitable giving if their taxes go up. In that case, I would question whether the giving is truly "charitable" in the sense of the word that I am familiar with.
The powerbrokers cited in the article take it one step further as viewing the gov't as Robin Hood, giving tax dollars away as they see fit-
"Giving away dollars." How very 47%. It's not like these guys have ever benefitted from the infrastructure that tax dollars support. Oh, no. I've noticed that all these guys developed their businesses in Somalia, and that's where they go to resolve their various legal issues as well.
I wonder how much time our tax-supported courts spend on issues pertaining to corporations and private enterprise? Fourteen percent? Twelve?
And finally, the "reductive argument" that dollars that go to the ballet do not go to building public infrastructure. Well, someone on this board just said that there is an "inextricable link" between voluntary giving and taxation (an inverse relationship, of course), so I suppose you should get back to him and let him know he's being far too simplistic in his thinking.
You can not reply as this discussion is Closed!
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Advertisement
Like this idiot?
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/douthat-the-obama-realignment/
Or this idiot?
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2012/nov/7/election-analysis-era-reagan-really-over/
Or how bout this one?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203347104578099361429417912.html
Or this one?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83472.html?hp=t1_3
A candidate can alienate a majority of white males and still become President.
And it only took us 225 years to get here!