Skeeter,
>so, you support the wealthy (mostly through dumb luck - intelligence is highly genetic) getting wealthier while everyone else kisses up. fine. i disagree.<
Dumb people and lots of money are soon parted. That's one of the BEAUTIES of the system. By definition smart people tend to control the capital that creates jobs, improves standards of living, etc.. in the most efficient manner available to us. That in turns does the most to help the most people. Rich people are automatically doing good things in their efforts to get even richer even though it's sometimes a rough process in the short term as things change (unless they cheat and break laws etc...).
You have to get over this crackpot idea that rich people are bad, lucky, or undeserving of their wealth because they might have had some advantages.
It doesn't bother me that I can't play basketball like Lebron James and he's getting rich because of his physical genetic advantage and very hard work. I think it's great for him. I hope he gives some of it away to charity, but if he gives it all to poor relatives he loves because they supported him when he had little, that's cool with me too.
>You seem to be saying warren would leave all that money to his children if the tax code were different - you just contradicted yourself. if the tax code is making buffet change how he disperses his money then it doesn't, by definition, support his core values.<
You are misunderstanding the point.
If the tax code stated that leaving money to children was not taxable but leaving it to charity was, he would leave it to his children but with strict restrictions over how it could be used (namely forcing them to give it away the way he wanted). That way he could again get good value, control how it was used, and "bypass government" totally.
|
