At Europe Through the Back Door, our tour program just sold its 11,782nd seat for our 2011 season — topping our best tour sales year ever (2007). Despite our antsy stock market and doom-and-gloom news stories, it seems that our economy is gaining some confidence. And yet, at the same time, our local symphony and arts center are in financial crisis.
As a way to celebrate, to give back to my beautiful hometown of Edmonds, and to spark a little conversation about why a society as affluent as the USA is cutting education, neglecting our environment, and defunding the arts while our wealthy class is doing better than ever, I’ve decided to make a donation of $1 million (in $100,000-a-year payments over the next decade) to our local symphony and arts center. This sum represents the money I’ve gained in the 10 years since the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans (those of us earning over $250,000 a year) took effect.
I believe those who say that “’job-creators’ can’t afford to pay 38 percent rather than 35 percent on their marginal income over $250,000” are either misguided or intentionally dishonest. I also believe a false austerity is being foisted on our society, and its long-term consequences are bad for the fabric of our democracy.
My local paper, The Everett Herald, has picked up the story. Judging from of the comments, some conservatives may choose to see my gift as evidence that the wealthy will fund the arts with the money they save with lower tax rates. But the problem is that for every wealthy person who chooses to dig deep and bail out organizations that are in need, dozens more are pocketing their profits and not following through with their much-ballyhooed prediction that “the private sector will provide.” The beauty of a more progressive tax code — as we all enjoyed in the prosperous, Clinton-led 1990s — is that the burden of funding the finer elements of society is spread fairly among those who can pay. Imagine worthwhile local causes not having to nervously wait for a generous donation — which, all too often, fails to materialize.
With my donation, I hope to challenge people to imagine how a tax code that goes a little harder on the wealthy could be a virtually painless way to help balance our national budget while helping our communities enjoy a few fine points like schools, parks, libraries, symphonies, and arts centers. It’s just so German, Dutch, and Canadian.
It has been stated that even if the federal government confiscated all of the wealth of high incomers, it would not be enough to cover the out-of-control spending in this country. Tax reform is badly needed in this country to correct the system that allows 50% of people in this country not to have to pay any taxes whatsoever, and also to make sure that the wealthy like Buffet cannot shield their wealth through loopholes and exemptions and call for raising everyone elses taxes. I’m curious, by your donation, did you claim an exemption or write-off?
According to economist Mark Perry, who used 2008 IRS data showed that the U.S. federal income tax system is highly progressive (as it’s intended to be, and not regressive as Buffett wants us to believe from his “analysis” of his employees’ tax rates) and higher income groups pay taxes at a higher rate on average, as a share of their taxable income. Although Buffett himself might be an exception, those taxpayers in his “super-rich” group (top 1%) pay federal taxes at the highest rate (23.3%) of any other income group. For the bottom 50% of taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $33,000 or less, the average federal income tax rate for that group is only 2.6%. Our tax system IS progressive, and the wealthy pay far more in taxes then what I consider to be fair. And I’m not even wealthy.
Kudos to you, Rick, for doing something to benefit others with your tax cut money. Let’s hope it catches fire with others in the same financial position. Could this have been motivated also by the recent news that some of the wealthiest citizens of France have asked to be taxed more by their government so that France will not end up like the U.S. (crumbling infrastructure, lack of basic public services)?
Definitely some food for thought . . .
Or you can go directly to pay.gov and return directly to the Treasury Dept. all the wealth you accumulated and don’t want from those darn Bush tax cuts.
Rick’s sales statistics reflect favorably upon his staff, his reputation and the desirability of his product. But the increasing gap between the haves and have nots is also part of the equation.
This could easily devolve into a political discussion when it is simply a noble gesture from an affluent business owner to share his wealth. We can debate whether the money should have gone to food or medicine or shelter for the less privileged. Nevertheless, anything that benefits others is worthy of mention. Even if there is some marginal marketing benefit, the donation helps set an example.
What would have made this gesture more noble would have been if Rick didn’t criticize the wealthy, hence turning the subject into a political discussion; and if he just donated anonymously he could have avoided the presumption that this was in part, a marketing ploy. Also, isn’t the budget and spending debates in this country about NOT wanting the US to turn into France? Just my food for thought.
Generous is as generous does…. I love you Rick Steves (From a laid off Librarian -since 2008)
Corporations made record profits in 2010. But as one analyst said on an NPR program a few months ago, “corporation are in business to create profits, not jobs.” With that mentality, you have to wonder how this economy will move forward. Logically, if people remain out of work, they aren’t earning an income, so they can’t buy anything..well, you get my drift. Something has to be done to: a) ration down the amount of outsourcing done and b) raise real wages in this country. If we don’t get serious about confronting this problem, Mexico will look like paradise by comparison. If the rich want to take more and more tax cuts and feel so entitled as to not re-invest in human capital in America, then let their tax cuts end. The wealthy on whole are not job creators, aren’t trying to create jobs here, and will not do so.
@Jan-by using Mark Perry, American Enterprise Institute visiting scholar, you have indicated the direction of your biases. @Alfran-citing NPR shows yours too. Maybe somewhere in the middle is the answer. I agree without a job you can’t buy anything so no business growth from local buyers. Seems to me the “job creators” haven’t done a very good job for local employment these past 10 years. Then again corporate profits are at all time highs so I guess corporations and their boards are doing what they are set up to do-increase market share, return on investment and stock value. Adding jobs is not on the agenda of a board meeting unless it will add value. But back to the topic. Good job Rick and other who share their wealth, your action is appreciated. Also, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next 20 years. Happy travels to all.
Rick your community will benefit greatly from your donation. We live in a small rural communtiy in Northern California, little by little the economy is getting better than it was a couple years ago. In California education is the scarey issue. 30 years ago when we moved here with a small baby we were so impressed with the schools and both of our kids got a wonderful education. This year we don’t even know by January if the kids will get a bus ride to school. Most of the population here lives 5-6 miles away from their school. Because of drug issues we have a significant population that barely gets their kids to school with the bus. But no one looks at the big picture. Schools loose their daily income for those kids. Major traffic and polution from 100,s of extra cars, 70 bus drivers now on unemployment. More inforcement to monitor kids not going to school. What happens to this generation of kids that have lost out on the first 10 years of their education. There is no “free lunch”, what in the heck do we want for our society! We need to quit thinking about what party that we belong to and become a united society that is generous and wants a better future. Because drug dealing is going to become the major employer for people that have no education
Rick I couldn’t agree more. My parents are retired and lived modestly all of their lives. That modest living has allowed them to retire without many financial concerns. They have friends who are in even better financial shape. These folks still eat breakfast at McDonalds for the free refills on coffee and the dollar menu, go to budget buffets for dinner and get new vehicles about every 15 years. I point this out not to be critical of a frugal lifestyle, I point this out because it flies in the face a philosophy that says, “let the wealthiest of us keep more of what they have and it will trickle down to the rest.” I suppose some will argue that eating at McDonalds contribute to the economy. But I have far less and contribute far more in real terms and relative terms to the local eating establishments. Then the argument will be that’s why I have far less.
@w – DEVOLVE into a political discussion? The blog post itself IS a political discussion, taken straight from the playbook liberals have written and referred to for years. I wonder when Steves will write a blog post bemoaning the fact that he and Perry share the same first name. Sad, this website used to be a reliable source of information on travel to Europe. Now, it’s become a politically-slanted megaphone for Leftist ideals. Is it any wonder, then, that blog posts such as this only garner 20 comments, when in the old days, they would generate 60 or 70 easily? People have wised up and moved on to Lonely Planet, Fodor’s, Frommer’s, etc.
Hmm, but you’re still reading the Blog @Thomas.
Thanks Rick for making the contribution. I hope others in a similar position will do the same.
Rick: I am very happy to see you giving back to your community. It is a laudable thing you are doing. I am certain that this gift given directly to your charity of choice will be used far more efficiently and produce far better results than if it were filtered through DC (with most of it instead going to transfer payments to people who are capable of working but choose instead to live off the rest of us).
By the way, for those of you who want to give more to the feds so they can waste it, you can make a Gift To The United States using directions found at this website:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
As for the flat tax, you should check out the experiences of European nations which have adopted it, Rick. Since you like to look to Europe for political inspiration, you should know that in Lithuania the flat tax was introduced and strong economic growth AND tax revenue increases have followed. Other nations have had similar gains following the introduction of the flat tax (which is a single tax rate with reduced deductions so that a wider net is cast for taxes while uncertainty is reduced for business). I would encourage you to do a little research on this topic. Prosperity for all is the answer to our economic malaise, not class warfare and attacks on business. Capitalism produces growth and better standards of living every time it is tried. It even allows people the money and leisure time for international travel…
Thank you for your generosity Rick. Feel free to ignore your critics.
Great comments from Frank and Thomas Eliot.
While it is laudable to contribute money to worthy causes voluntarily, I find Rick’s liberal slant of promoting the same failed policies even though they have been proven failures, to really begin to affect his credibility overall, even as it relates to travel. Someone so politically naive makes me start to question his viewpoints on travel as well. Sad.
So if these are all faliled policies, then what policies would be sucessful? We really have never heard that. I hear a lot about the failed ones, but not too much about something that would work. Only that someone else can fix this?
While I fully support your right to fund your local arts (and applaud you for doing so!), I can’t help but feel your position is inconsistent. If you’ve been given too much of your own money back from the Bush tax cuts (tax cuts that, I’ll add, survived two years of Democratic control of both houses of Congress during the current Democratic President’s administration) to the determinent of the nation, why don’t you donate the million to the IRS and let Congress decide how to use it, rather than using it for a purpose near to your own heart? Wouldn’t you rather that million go towards federal efforts on education? Or the environment? Or publicly funded arts? Or do you feel that your million dollars would simply disappear in the out-of-control bureaucracy in Washington and that your donation will have far more profound and positive effect in your own community if YOU choose where it goes? In striving to denounce lower taxes, I think you’ve vindicated them…
While yes some people may listen to NPR and have Liberal views, it doesn’t mean their ideas and suggestions are any less important. As most know, I don’t always see eye to eye with Alfran but I’m not ashamed to say I agree with him 100% about outsourcing and wages. It may not solve every issue but it vital aspect that can’t be overlooked. Saying someone is bias does NOTHING to solve the problem. By following that way of thinking we should dismiss anyone who references fox, msnbc, cnn, abc, cbs, bbc, etc, etc. It’s a pointless and vicious circle. You may not agree with Rick but at least he is trying to be proactive and positive. He could send that money overseas, but he chose to reinvest it in community programs. Kudos Mr. Steves.
Way to go Rick Steves! If actions speak louder than words, your extraordinary donation says a mouthfull!
Bravo, Rick. I agree with you.
Rick – your generosity is evidence that there is a better way to support the arts than by government mandate. In fact your example fits better with history (patronage and sponsorship) than current governmentt experiments. If you question how tax rates impact charity, read “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters” by a liberal, Arthur C. Brooks.
Arthur Brooks book based on years of research was a definitive analysis showing that conservatives ARE more compassionate then progressives in that they overwhelmingly give more to charities. The irony is that progressives have a more materialistic philosophy then free market advocates. Progressive solutions always involve income redistribution or what they like to phrase “social justice”. If this country would reverse its 50-year march toward statism, and allow freedom and opportunity for everyone — even the poor — then we could achieve something really meaningful. A limited safety net is admirable but if we desire a society with the best outcome and satisfaction, we need to stress the imiportance of individual responsibility and success on one’s own merits. I believe in lower taxes because I believe in one’s earned success, and am hopeful that in 2012 this country will reverse course (as it did after Jimmy Carter) and elect a president who truly understands how to unleash market capitalism through lower taxes as Reagan did, and turn this country on the path to economic freedom which will result in job growth and a growing GDP. That is the best way to increase tax revenue for needy causes.
Rick – Whether I agree or disagree with you I at least have to give you credit for putting your money where your mouth is. Personally I think the only way to go is with a Flat Tax 15-20% (we can debate the %), no loopholes, no write-offs, no deductions. Possibly no tax for under $10,000 per year. This way everyone pays and we take away a powerful tool politicians use to buy votes. Not to mention we would save a lot of trees, the tax code would be one page long rather than 3,458 pages. Take care
1. Jimmy Carter was voted out because of the hostage crisis, not his economic policy. 2. In the end Reagan back-tracked and started raising taxes again. 3. Bill Clinton ran a budget surplus and the economy was strong. 4. Current Budget deficits began with going into 2 major wars and cutting taxes simultaneously. 5. Current downturn began during Bush administration and Bush initiated the first stimulus package. 6. MOST economists say stimulus packages were the right thing to do at the time. 7. A moderate mix of raising revenues and cutting expenses is sound economic policy, not a demented communist plot. Really.
Rick, though I applaud your actions in donating to what I assume would be considered a good cause, I do question your priorities. A symphony and arts center is a “nicety” but is hardly a necessity. I’m sure there are plenty of soup kitchens, homeless shelters etc. that could have put that money to better use. During hard times, people can do without a trip to the symphony to hear a concert. They usually can’t do without food or a roof over their heads. Or, as another thought, why not donate the $100,000 to another country where “people live on $2 a day” as you so often tell us. $100,000 would go a long way there.
Rick,
As always, YOU ROCK! Thank you for your continued activism and altruism!
Mark
@Jan-Arthur Brooks, President of American Enterprise Institute, survey showed that conservatives report charitable giving more then progressives report charitable giving. This is the same phenomenon as people who say they attend church weekly versus those who actually attend church weekly. Also, Dr. Brooks stated if religious giving was removed from the equation progressives report and give more then conservatives report and give.
Back on topic-Again thanks Rick of the donation. The arts can always use a helping hand and where would we be without music?
Continuing with Z’s approach, I suggest looking at “Kiva-Loans that change lives” as an avenue to help others get started in other countries. I believe Rick has mentioned this organization along with Bread for the World.
Great job, Mr. Steves. While others clearly want to argue about who deserves what (a fruitless argument), all the while you have made a choice to actually do something. I hope it inspires others to do the same.
Rick, I love you travel efforts, and some of your politics (although the mixing of the two certainly gives me cause to roll my eyes a little :) ) but in this instance, I must disagree. So that my argument isn’t taken as self serving: I don’t make enough to come into the tax bracket in question 250k etc…
That being said, while I applaud your charity (if not necessarily the public nature of it), I don’t think it is putting your money where your mouth is. In fact, it is putting your money where your political opponents mouths are, so to speak.
If you truly believe that taxes should be raised, and that the govt is the correct dispatcher of capital, then put the extra 100k a year as extra tax payment. Even then the symbolism isn’t perfect, because you have the option.
I will leave the argument about credit card spending giving the appearance of affluence for another day.
Best Wishes,
DP in Houston
Hank: Your point is not well made considering that religious organizations give assistance to needy people as a regular part of their mission. Your argument is basically that if we exclude from the definition of charity that which you disagree with then, presto, people who give less are actually more charitable than those who give more. Sorry but that just does not hold water.
BTW, I am always a little suspicious of the motives of those who give and then make a big fuss about it. I believe true charitable giving does not involve public recognition (and also an advertisement for one’s business).
Hank,
How can you remove religious donations from the equation and still expect credible results? It’s faulty science to extract a variable such as this to make one’s argument. Both your argument as well as Rick’s about the need for higher taxation are disingenous at best, downright dishonest at worst. If spending were the answer then Keynesian economics would be hailed the world over, but it is universally derided by any respectable economist. I would just concur with the argument already made about the hypocrisy of calling for higher taxes from the wealthy, yet DONATING TO ONE’S OWN PREFERRED CHARITY instead of voluntarily donating part of your wealth directly to the government. Instead of championing higher taxes for everybody ELSE, the argument would have been better made if YOU donated $1 million directly to the government . Donate all you want, but please don’t say wealthy people should be taxed more. They have just as much a right to donate to their pet projects as well, all without government interference.
Since when has it been the responsibility of the private sector to provide anything other than non-goverment (i.e. tax based) commerce? People should be able to decide when and what to spend their money on, and if it happens that people don’t want to spend on the arts, then that’s their right.
Honestly, I am scared to death of the likelihood that the US government has to “provide” anything for me. The government (US or otherwise) is inherently wasteful and inefficient. Of course there are cases where success can only come with government backing or leadership (e.g. creating the interstate road system), but in general, government “providing” does little more than drive competitiveness out of the system at the expense of quality and service.
And by the way, those fabulous Clinton years (and I agree they were fabulous) were not evidence of the genius of the progressive agenda. Rather, they were evidence of fast, unsustainable growth as a result of out of control spending…someone asked “where did the wealth of the 90’s go?” Answer: there really was no exceptional wealth, but rather debt in the form of high risk (sorry, sub prime) loans and people spending beyond their means often at the admonition of banks and other authorities. Of course many did manage to get wealthy by taking advantage of the situation (much the way Joe Kennedy got wealthy take advantage of the stock market issues pre-depression).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for slashing and burning just because we can. However, if there are organizations/programs, etc that can only exist because of government subsidies, how much do people really want them anyway? If people truly find things valuable, they will pay for them (just as Rick is doing). If not, they won’t…said differently, saving money by not spending on the arts (or anything else for that matter) does not automatically make someone a “greedy rat.”
Having been around for quite awhile, I’m still pleased when people contribute to any struggling cause which benefits others not able or willing to. Philanthropists have many reasons for donating and it’s not unreasonable for them to be recognized for their efforts. My own experience is that the lower income quintiles are proportionately more generous and if they don’t give money, they often give time and labor. By far most of the money donated in the US goes to religious organizations so contributions to education, charities like United Way, and the arts are very appropriate. Rick Steves probably didn’t expect to be excoriated for his generosity.Some people get up on the wrong side of the bed. Others are wedded to iron-clad ideologies. Some just need to periodically vent and this blog site may contribute to their mental health. Keep on giving Rick. You will reap your reward in self satisfaction.
First, Rick deserves kudos for his generous to the two organizations in his home town. If I had the resources, I would do likewise.
Second, Ditto – jan. If the current group in government had more money from increased taxes, they would just find more ways to spend. You would see new programs like you would not believe. And that would mean more government workers. Not what we need to get spending and the debt under control. As for the 50% that pays little or nothing, NOT FAIR. Everyone should pay for the privileges we have in this great country.
To believe that the government will do good with any additional tax money they take from us is just wishful thinking.
Wait, is this a chatroom or a comment page?
I would advise all people who like to use IRS statistics to indicate what level of taxes people pay on specifc levels of income that the income reported is Adjusted Gross Income. AGI can hide a whole lot of sins.
I also need to point out that the comment that 50% of people pay no taxes what ever is false. The 50% pay no INCOME tax, but they do pay sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, and who knows how many other types of tax. The important number should be what percentage of TOTAL income is paid in ALL types of taxes. I think the “rich” come out pretty good when all taxes versus all income is considered.
Hey Jan, I am wealthy and I just wanted to say thank you for fighting the fight for me – even though you are wrong – you just keep being as blind as you are and I’ll keep keeping most of my money thanks to you.
Cheers!
Please state with specifics where I’m “wrong”. Why are you keeping most of your money as you say if you feel you don’t deserve it? Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and contribute higher taxes voluntarily to the Treasurey Department? You don’t need government or Congressional approval to do so. Likely you won’t. You must be a progressive.
Cheers!
I think Rick Steves should be allowed to play an opening tuba/sousaphone recital gala to open the season at the arts center! ;)
Even allowing for income differences, conservatives donate more to charity than liberals do. They make donations without resorting to agitprop. The donation to the arts is the only thing right about the post.
First, America has nothing resembling a flat tax. America’s top 10 percent pay a larger share of income taxes compared to their income share than the top 10 percent in any other developed country (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html). When all taxes are taken into account, America’s taxes are less regressive than France’s (http://caseymulligan.blogspot.com/2010/12/who-pays-for-big-government.html). George W. Bush reduced everyone’s taxes, not just those of “the rich.” Bill Clinton made tax regressive tax changes by increasing energy taxes and reducing the capital gains tax rate. It was the reduction in capital gains tax rates that fueled the 1990s boom. Clinton and the GOP held the line on spending. President Obama’s cap-and-trade program would have immensely increased the tax burden on the poor. Big government is expensive for every one.
Conservatives aren’t the only ones who think the rich are overtaxed. Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, and Charles Rangel didn’t report significant income. Warren Buffet of all people is in a dispute with the IRS.
At the federal level, education spending increased immensely under Presidents Bush and Obama. Since 1970, public school employment has increased 10 times faster than student enrollment. There has not been a noticeable improvement in results. We wouldn’t think much of a doctor if we can perform better surgery than he can in our kitchen; yet home schoolers get better results than the public schools. Colleges can spend money on frivolous fields such as “Jiggle in the Walk: The Iconic Power of the ‘Big Butt’ in American Pop Culture” or “Travel as a Political Act.” There’s nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to fund the arts. It’s a program for the affluent.
It’s also false to say that environmental rules aren’t being enforced. The EPA is preparing to shut down a sizeable portion of our power plants. The financial results won’t be progressive. The Fish and Wildlife police recently prosecuted Schylar Capo for transporting an endangered species. The 11 year old saved a woodpecker from a cat and took it home to nurse it back to health. She was fined $535.
An unemployment rate of 9.1 percent is no reason for confidence. It would be much worse if many workers haven’t given up. Of course, America’s jobless rate looks good compared to the Eurozone’s 9.9 percent.
In 2008, Obama said that increasing the national debt by $4 trillion is “unpatriotic.” It has gone up that much since he took office. Social Security and Medicare have unfunded obligations of $50 trillion. Any one who thinks taxing the rich will solve our problems is in denial.
Wonderful gesture and comment, Rick. You’re an inspiration.
Response to Jan’s 8/27 comment on tax reform, the U.S tax system is not as progressive as you think. A study done by the Citizens for Tax Justice (see April 2009 article, “Is Tax Day Too Burdensome for the Rich?) reports that the total federal, state and local effective tax rate for the richest one percent of Americans (30.9 percent) is only slightly higher than the average effective rate for the remaining 99 percent of Americans (29.4 percent).
Also, all working Americans do pay payroll taxes, so it is incorrect to say that 50 percent of Americans do not pay taxes.
@William and Jan-not my argument but taken from Dr. Brooks book. He stated that if charitable giving to religious organizations were removed from the total giving equation then his finding show progressives give and report more giving then conservatives. I believe what Dr.Brooks is trying to show is conservative give more to religious causes and progressives give to non-religious causes but that is just my interpretation of what he wrote.
As for my answer to the taxing question: a flat tax with no deductions paid on all earned income earned by all individuals and corporations payable to federal, state and local governments.
Jan, you said,
“It has been stated that even if the federal government confiscated all of the wealth of high incomers, it would not be enough to cover the out-of-control spending in this country.” –
Who said this and where’s the proof this is an accurate statement?
“Tax reform is badly needed in this country to correct the system that allows 50% of people in this country not to have to pay any taxes whatsoever”
– Right with the tax reform is badly needed. Wrong with the 50% don’t pay any taxes myth. Most do pay taxes just as others here have pointed out – those taxes are Social Security and Medicare taken out of payroll tax, income tax, property tax and sales tax. See links: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf and http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2010/04/15/about-those-47-percent-who-pay-“no-taxes-”/
“And also to make sure that the wealthy like Buffet cannot shield their wealth through loopholes and exemptions and call for raising everyone elses taxes.”
First, show me where Mr. Buffet has actually called for raising “everyone else’s” taxes but his own (which is implied though not written)?
Second, if your argument is that Buffet wants higher taxes for everyone else because his money wouldn’t be touched because he’s using the system, then why wouldn’t most, if not all wealthy (that use the same exemptions and loopholes) do the same thing? Is Buffet the only wealthy (and a progressive I might add) person out there trying to game the system?
And if you are so concerned with out of control spending, where is your outrage over the massive bank bailout, the billions being wasted on 2 wars, the total waste and mismanagement of our tax dollars when it comes to the DHS – http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-911-homeland-money-20110828,0,3913741,full.story – and on and on and on?
I could continue dissecting your post, but I’m pretty sure you’re just going to accuse me of being a progressive for disagreeing with you so why bother? I will leave you with this: you may believe that the wealthy pay far more in taxes than what you consider to be fair, but I know for a from experience (going from making 30,000 a year to 800,000) that what wealthy people pay in taxes is more than fair. Any wealthy person that says otherwise is only lying in order to keep things the way they are, heavily weighted in their favor.
charitable giving is always a good thing. forcing others to give is not.
Thanks Rick for your generous contribution to the Arts. We all need a little beauty in our lives and music and art feeds that need. You have inspired me to donate to my local art center.
J
People love to label people who don’t agree with their own beliefs don’t they? At least on this site we seldom read pejoratives like: moron; scum-of-the-earth; apostate; liar; stupid; immoral; co-opted etc.
Raising the top rate to 38 percent doesn’t go far enough. Let’s make it 65 percent, like Herbert Hoover did (from 25 percent).
There is a plethora of news readily available showing the myth that taxing the wealthy (even those making $200,000 a year — Obama’s definition of “wealth”) will not cover the endless spending and reduce the deficit in this country. Read this:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/warren-buffett-s-tax-solution-won-t-solv
from non-partisan Tax Foundation.
Again, do the research since you do not want to believe that 51% of people pay NO INCOME TAX (I’m talking federal).
Mr. Buffett has called for raising “wealthy” peoples taxes. He has stated that it is not fair that “he” pays less a tax then his employees. Mr. Buffett, as being the 2nd wealthiest man in the US, can afford to live on his investments. He is taxed only 15% on his capital gains (the source of his wealth) YET he neglects to mention and you neglect to research, that his company has already paid taxes on that profit, so his “tax” liability is really upwards of 50%. Now you probably do not believe that Buffett is a crony capitalist, but he is. His companies are being investigated for NOT PAYING TAXES. Mr. Buffett also neglects to mention that when the government increases the taxes on the wealthy his INSURANCE COMPANY profits by that because wealthy people would rather shield their wealth from the higher confiscatory taxes of the government, PLUS good, ole Warren can make a profit. What ails this country is the crony capitalists who are big and wealthy enough (like Bill Gates) to “work with the government” so as to shield themselves from their wrath of a government that can and will prosecute if you don’t play their game. (Just research the Justice Dept. suing Microsoft). Warren Buffett IS a hypocrite because he champions raising the taxes of the “wealthy” yet he avoids taxation by using a legion of accountants who use the exemptions and loopholes prevalent in the tax system. Legal? Yes. Unethical, immoral, and hypocritical? Yes. Reforming the tax code is the solution.
I have always objected to out-of-control government spending which results in budget deficit fiascos, whether under Bush and his “two wars” or any other president. The fact remains though, that after almost $1 trillion dollars of OBAMA’S stimulus spending, this country has had anemic GDP growth, 9% + unemployment rate (the longest unemployment rate in history), and the first time ever downgrading of our credit rating. You can blame Bush and his wars all you want, but OBAMA has exacerbated and expanded upon the ruination of our economy.
Lastl, you still avoid answering my question: Why don’t you voluntarily pay higher taxes if you think you don’t deserve the wealth formation that you have acquired?
The US spends too much money and it collects too few taxes. The debate centers on whose ox should be gored. Is it the Pentagon with its 766 bases in forty countries? Probably. Is it the rich whose taxes are the lowest since the 1950’s? Probably. Is it Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, govt. sponsored enterprises which shouldn’t be? Probably. Is it the health care consortium which is driving prices inexorably upward for Medicare and Medicaid? Probably. Is it those who are benefiting from mortgage interest deductions (while renters get none). Probably. Is it union members whose benefits and salaries add $1550 to the price of a US made vehicle. Probably. Is it S&P 500 CEO’s whose average annual income is 10.8 million dollars? Probably. Is it Social Security whose wealthy participants only paid FICA tax up to a ceiling of $108,000? Probably. The point is that we not only need to reduce spending but to
increase revenue. The more equitably the pain is spread, the more diffuse and tolerable it will be.
That is a rather interesting question by jan. I wasn’t even sure if you could “technically” give money to the U.S. gov, seriously when is any government going to “turn down” money. But I found this http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/11/news/economy/national_debt/index.htm and http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html.
@Bill-You are a wise man, thanks for your posting. I hope all your suggestions are implemented. Everyday more bad news in the press. Today’s story CEO’s get paid more then their companies pay in taxes. I have to add that Jan you are wrong about Warren Buffet. Try watching Bloomberg News not Fox News. Thankful this website has enjoyable videos to take me to Paris and other great places. Happy travels.
Well said, Bill.
While Rick is certainly no dummy in terms of running his business, the fact of the matter is that he has benefited enormously (cha ching $$$$$) from the FREE publicity he receives on PBS each year. Therefore it’s no wonder that he feels the need to promote and push ‘public’ funding for the arts and his cushy ‘free ride’!
I must say that this is the most respectful discussion regarding our current economic ills that I have yet seen on the internet.
I respect Rick for putting his money where his heart is.
I would respect him more if he put it where his mouth is – in the federal treasury.
Rick, you wouldn’t be planning on taking some kind of tax deduction for this charitable giving would you? Let’s not forget those paragons of giving, the Clintons, who took the $2 tax deduction for Bill’s old underwear.
I find that anonymous giving is best.