The Government Gu$her – Tea Party Nation


The Government Gu$her – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

At a time when the biggest issues are the economy, the reform of entitlement programs, the national debt and deficit, many Americans are blissfully unaware of the machine that keeps their taxpayer dollars flowing from every federal government department and agency. Even with a $16 trillion dollar debt, the money gushes forth.

In a Wall Street Journal column by William McGurn about government spending, he says that “Surely the real issue here is whether people have any meaningful choice. Because government funding tends to crowd out private funding, it leaves fewer and more expensive options in its wake. Generally that means you have to be as rich as Warren Buffett or living in the most inaccessible Ozarks backwoods to be in a position to forego federal dollars.”

Point well taken; older Americans, having paid into the involuntary system, understandably expect to receive Social Security checks every month and the same applies to having Medicare cover escalating healthcare costs. Many younger Americans are going to college on government loans. There is a plethora of government programs that redistribute taxpayer dollars on all manner of worthy or dubious recipients.

The most troubling aspect of government largess is the political factor. I was reminded of this upon receiving a news release from the U.S. Forest Service announcing $3.5 million to support community forests. One might reasonably ask why, at a time when the national debt is $16 trillion dollars why the government is spending money on community forests.

On closer examination, it appears that the grants are going to communities in states that Democrats need in terms of their Electoral College votes. Grants went to communities in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, notable swing states, as well as dependable ones such as Washington, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Then, too, it should be noted that every U.S. State maintains offices in Washington, D.C. to ensure it receives the government grants being handed out for all aspects of their needs, much of which is dependent on federal funding. Collectively, the states are over $4 trillion in debt; much of which is tied to public worker’s pensions and other benefits.

The money gusher also explains the exponential growth in the lobbying industry. A 2005 Washington Post article noted that “The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.”

Wikipedia says that “By 2011, one estimate of overall lobbying spending nationally was $30+ billion in 2010.” Every industry, profession, enterprise and special interest group in America seeks representation and a piece of the pie.

Federal spending understandably reflects the policies of whichever administration is in power and the Obama administration’s obsession with alternative energy has resulted in some of the most wasteful spending—they call it investment—as it lost billions in loan guarantees to companies such as Solyndra and other solar panel manufacturers. The wind power industry could literally not exist without some form of government funding and mandates.

There isn’t a single federal government department and agency that does not engage fulltime in the redistribution of wealth via grants, some of which would be commendable if the nation was not facing economic collapse.

In August, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced a $68 million in grants for HIV/AIDS care for women, infants, children, and youth. It also announced awards up to $4.6 million in youth suicide prevention programs to tribes throughout South Dakota.

In August the Department of Education announced more than $2.5 million for seven student support services projects to help students succeed in high education.

Over at the Department of Transportation the Federal Highway Administration announced more than $363 million in funding for various highway projects. When they invited states and cities to apply for federal funding from twelve different grant programs, they received nearly 1,500 requests totaling almost $2.5 billion. Grants have gone to all fifty states, plus Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

To push its agenda, the Environmental Protection Agency hands out millions in grants for Community Action for Renewed Environment, Education, Environmental Justice, Student Programs, the National Clean Diesel campaign, and other comparable programs.

Every single federal department, Labor, Justice, Interior, et cetera, is engaged in this largess of programs, including the State Department which oversees foreign aid. It is all funded not only by taxes, but by continuous borrowing—forty cents of every dollar spent, millions every day.

Congress is so shy of cutting any spending program it initiated a doomsday program, the automatic sequestration, the results of which are supposed to spread the pain. It is a failure to exercise the oversight Congress is supposed to exercise. It is the abandonment of one of its most important functions.

The hope is that a Republican Congress and White House will seriously reform the nation’s entitlement programs; literally one half of all the money is committed to be spent before Congress arrives in the Capitol Building to do anything else.

The reality is that our huge federal government will continue to disperse all the money it collects and borrows to justify its existence.

© Alan Caruba, 2012


Democrats Love Taxes — They Just Don’t Want to Pay Them – Larry Elder – Townhall Conservative


Al Sharpton

Al Sharpton (Photo credit: Ewils Photo)

Democrats Love Taxes — They Just Don’t Want to Pay Them – Larry Elder – Townhall Conservative.

Forgive Republican candidate Mitt Romney for his alleged failure to adequately explain why he paid “only” 14 percent of his income in taxes.

The honest answer — “Well, because my accountants couldn’t figure out how to get them any lower” — does not work in this or very many other election years. Romney seemed flat-footed because, like most business people, he seeks to minimize costs and expenses.

This includes taxes.

A normal wealthy-and-proud-of-it guy would have said: “Let me get this straight, pal. I’m not supposed to take every legal advantage provided me by the tax laws to reduce my taxes?” For what it’s worth, about 15 percent of Romney’s last two years of income went to charity — substantially higher than the percentage given by the Obamas or Joe Biden’s $380 (not a typo) of his quarter-million dollar income in 2006.

“Tax savings” allows people more money to save, spend, invest, bequeath and donate. On some level, even Democrats understand this.

Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., is one of them. In 2001, Massachusetts lowered it state income tax rate. But the legislature showed mercy for the Bay State‘s guilt-ridden, tax-hike-supporting liberals. The tax form allowed the filer to check a special box — and pay the old, higher rate. Out of more than 3 million tax filers in 2004, a tiny fraction of 1 percent — 930 taxpayers — volunteered to pay the higher rate. Among those who declined the opportunity was Mr. Frank. Frank explained, “I don’t trust the legislative leadership and Gov. (Mitt) Romney to make the right decisions.” Instead, Frank said, “I’ll donate the money myself.” What?! Charity might better spend money than can government, which, by its nature, operates less efficiently and more expensively than can private welfare?

Democrat Sen. Howard Metzenbaum from Ohio (served 1974, 1976-1995) was another tax-supporting Democrat not too keen on paying more in taxes than he needed to. But after retirement, the wealthy Metzenbaum moved to Florida, which, unlike Ohio, is a state with no estate or personal income taxes. This saved him millions.

Democrat John Edwards‘ wife Elizabeth, during the 2004 campaign, said rich politicians like her husband reveal “character” when they vote against financial “interest” by supporting higher taxes. This is the same John Edwards who, as a trial lawyer winning big jury awards, established a separate sub-corporation to accept the money, paying him through dividends rather than income. Perfectly legal. But this allowed Edwards to avoid some $600K in Medicare payroll taxes.

Democrats like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., rail against the Bush tax cuts that rich people — like himself — “didn’t need” and “didn’t ask for.” Rhode Island requires no sales tax on yachts registered in that state — provided the boat is primarily housed in Rhode Island. Massachusetts is not so understanding. That state requires a sales tax and annual excise taxes. Folks say that Kerry and his 75-foot yacht spend way more time in Massachusetts than in Rhode Island. But accountants say that the wealthy yachtsman can avoid nearly $500K in state taxes by registering his boat in Rhode Island — which he did. All was going well, until a New York paper got hold of the story and Kerry “voluntarily” agreed to pay the Mass. tax — while continuing to insist that he does not really owe it.

Democrats like the late Ted Kennedy support the estate tax. And why not? The Kennedy family transfers wealth from generation to generation through trusts that avoid the very estate taxes that Kennedy consistently voted to impose on the wealth of others.

Shouldn’t tax-hike-supporting rich people like Warren Buffett want to pay more rather than less taxes? Yet one of Buffett’s companies is contesting tax claims against it.

Pro-tax-hike Democrats like MSNB-Hee-Haw’s the Rev. Al Sharpton deserve a special wing all to themselves in the Chutzpah Hall of Fame. Sharpton assails the Bush-era tax cuts and wants “the rich” to pay more. Sharpton lists income from his nonprofit at just under a quarter million dollars. Add this to his estimated salary at the cable network, and the “civil rights leader” likely pulls in a tidy $500K. Not bad for a guy that not long ago was a gold-medallion-wearing Harlem rabble-rouser in velour sweatpants who got famous by playing the race card in a phony rape case.

Sharpton, according to the New York Post, owes federal taxes and state taxes totaling $3.5 million. How much income would Sharpton have had to earn to amass $3.5 million in state and local taxes? A lot. How much nerve does it take for a guy making a half mil to go on television and pound the podium for higher taxes on the rich — when his own effective tax rate is 0 percent?

Ask Sharpton.

MILLER: Calling Buffett’s bluff – Washington Times

President Barack Obama and Warren Buffett in t...

Image via Wikipedia

MILLER: Calling Buffett’s bluff – Washington Times.

There’s nothing fair about making bogus claims to justify tax hikes

By Emily Miller – The Washington Times

President Obama still thinks taxes need to be raised because the ultra-wealthy CEO of Berkshire Hathaway isn’t paying enough to Uncle Sam. “If you’ve done well – I’ve done well – then you should do a little something to give something back,” Mr. Obama said while standing under a Cincinnati bridge on Thursday.

He was so fired up he slipped and accidentally told the truth: “All I’m saying is that Warren Buffett’s secretary should not be paying a lower tax rate on her income than Warren Buffett.”

Mr. Obama and Mr. Buffett both want bigger government and wealth redistribution. Neither claims raising taxes on job creators and investors will solve the $14.7 trillion debt crisis; they just speak vaguely about being “fair” – a term Mr. Obama read seven times in his bridge speech. Mr. Buffett told PBSCharlie Rose in August, “I don’t think we should cut spending dramatically now. I don’t think that what I’m talking about on taxes solves the deficit gap at all. But I think fairness is important.”

The top 10 percent of income earners making over $100,000 a year pay 70 percent of all income taxes. “We already have a very steeply progressive tax system,” said Ryan Ellis, tax-policy director of Americans for Tax Reform. “There’s nothing fair about it now. Technically, if you want to be fair, you’d raise taxes on the poor and decrease them on the wealthy.”

Congressional Republicans realize this and are calling the billionaire’s bluff. Texas Sen. John Cornyn told The Washington Times on Friday, “If Warren Buffett’s taxes are going to serve as the basis for national tax policy, in the interest of transparency he ought to disclose them.” Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Kansas Republican, fired off a letter to Mr. Buffett challenging him to release the forms.

From what we know so far, Mr. Buffett’s arithmetic doesn’t work out. The tax returns he waved at the PBS host only raised more questions. Mr. Buffett gives himself a salary of $100,000 and claims that the average Berkshire employee pays a 36 percent rate compared to his own 17.4 percent rate. He justified the discrepancy by claiming the majority of his income from dividends and capital gains does not get hit with the 13.3 percent payroll tax. “That alone is higher than the tax rate on capital gains or dividends,” he told Mr. Rose.

That’s not accurate. Employees are only responsible for 5.65 percent of that tax, which is significantly less than the capital-gains levy of 15 percent. “He’s is assigning the entire payroll tax to be paid by his secretary, when in reality, his company pays half,” Mr. Ellis explained.

The tax expert also pointed out that, “It’s not like she’s paying those taxes and nothing ever happens again like with income tax. She gets Social Security and Medicare benefits later.”

Internal Revenue Service figures show a person making $60,000 a year had an average tax rate of 11.6 percent. So adding the payroll tax, Mr. Buffett’s secretary is likely paying 17.2 percent, which is still less than her boss.

The “Buffett rule” is being built upon a lie designed to fan the flames of class warfare and allow Mr. Obama to bring his liberal base back into the fold for 2012. The quickest way to end the speculation is for Mr. Buffett to release his returns for all to see.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

WOLF: Barack Obama’s desperate Hail Mary – Washington Times

Seal of the President of the United States

Image via Wikipedia

WOLF: Barack Obama’s desperate Hail Mary – Washington Times.

Plan to raise taxes won’t save his collapsing presidency

By Dr. Milton R. Wolf – The Washington Times

“We are witnessing the unmistakable collapse of an American presidency.” I wrote those words in this space almost one year ago, and events continue to prove them true. It seems the president himself now recognizes this reality. Thus his desperate Hail Mary.

The second Summer of Recovery failed to materialize, and now the Autumn of Despair is settling in. The president’s approval ratings are at record lows. Americans identify themselves as conservative by a 2-1 margin over liberal, and it’s widening. The Democrats just lost two House special elections, including one for a “safe” New York seat they’ve firmly held for 88 years. And this after taking a “shellacking” – the president’s own word – in last year’s midterm elections. But who should be surprised?

Obamanomics has become its own parody, a disastrous amalgam of wildly increased deficit spending, central planning, bailouts, takeovers, unconstitutional mandates, overregulation, crony favoritism, debased currency and increased taxes. The “smartest guy ever to become president,” as pundits used to call him, knows only one solution to every problem: Grow the government. Now his proverbial chickens have come home to roost and the landscape is littered with the results: Unemployment. High gas prices. Deficits. Food stamps. Poverty. Uninsured people. Foreclosures. Bankruptcies. Layoffs. Phony green jobs. Downgraded America. This is Obamanomics.

Obamacare has become emblematic of big government’s arrogant incompetence. It’s a 2,700-page monstrosity whose rules are still being written more than a year after its passage. Its supporters could not be bothered to read it before forcing it upon us, even as one of their own called it “a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.” The landscape is littered with Obamacare’s broken promises: Keep your doctor. Keep your insurance. Cut the deficit. Reduce premiums. Create 4 million new jobs. All lies. Instead, connected friends got Obamacare waivers while the rest of America has seen an increase in premiums and the roles of the uninsured actually have increased. This is Obamacare.

It’s no wonder independents have long since abandoned President Obama, but now his liberal base – what’s left of it, anyway – is launching an open rebellion against him.

Liberals are vowing to mount a primary challenge against Mr. Obama. A columnist for his hometown newspaper, who endorsed his 2008 election, is calling on him to step aside for the good of the party. The Congressional Black Caucus, which previously boasted of Barack Obama as a member, revealed its racially suppressed desire to be “marching on the White House” – if only its current occupant weren’t black. Loyal Democratic consultant James Carville declared the obvious: It’s time for the White House to “panic.”

Indeed, it is.

The president offered up his latest plan, the only kind he knows: a tax increase. A massive tax increase. The mother of all tax increases. A $1.5 trillion tax increase.

Once again, the president, who earlier extended President George W. Bush’s “tax cuts for millionaires,” is entering self-parody mode. Mr. Obama is like an Apple iPhone commercial but not in a good way. Need jobs? There’s a tax for that. Want health care? There’s a tax for that. Support energy reform? There’s a tax for that. Feel guilty about your success? There’s a big tax for that.

Assuaging liberals’ guilt is never easy, but assuaging billionaire liberals’ guilt is darn near impossible, at least in the case of Warren Buffett. The Oracle of Omaha is the namesake of Mr. Obama’s so-called “Buffett Rule,” which, simply stated, is this: Billionaires like Mr. Buffett who refuse to pay their own billion-dollar tax bills can proclaim moral superiority by calling for increased taxes on hardworking, job-producing Americans who dare to earn $200,000 a year.

Leaving aside the unbelievably poor judgment of naming a tax-increase rule after a billionaire who is in a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service over back taxes (was “Timothy F. Geithner TurboTax Rule” already taken?) the plan is based on the outright false claim that millionaires pay less in taxes than middle-class earners. That claim is “nothing more than an urban legend,” according to an Associated Press fact check. This election ploy will not be mistaken for a serious economic plan. Heck, it won’t even be mistaken for a competent election ploy.

White House strategists, using the term generously, know this $1.5 trillion tax increase will never pass the Republican House. Instead, they actually believe that when it fails, voters will flock to the tax-increase side of the divide. Don’t pay enough taxes? There’s a tax for that. This transparent attempt to win back its base at the obvious expense of independents is proof positive that the White House knows the president is in big trouble.

Meanwhile, sit back, grab some popcorn and watch Mr. Obama debate Mr. Obama over tax increases during economic downturns. Here he is in a 2009 interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd: “The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.”

The Republican campaign commercials just write themselves. Mr. Carville says the president should begin firing people, starting with whoever thought this tax-increase Hail Mary was a good idea. It doesn’t even pass the laugh test. They had to know this video of the president exists.

And so the presidential collapse continues unabated. I take no delight in this fact, recognizing it only as the least worst of possibilities, but this administration has become an affront to our liberty rather than a guarantor of it. As such, this president’s problems are of his own making, and history will not judge him kindly.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a Washington Times columnist, is President Obama’s cousin. He blogs at

ROOT: Obama is right – Washington Times

President Barack Obama and Warren Buffett in t...

Image via Wikipedia

ROOT: Obama is right – Washington Times.

Let’s give Democratic constituencies all the ‘fairness’ they can handle

By Wayne Allyn RootThe Washington Times

President Obama is right. It is time for “fairness.” It is time to ask some Americans to do more, contribute more, sacrifice more. But like most things Mr. Obama does, he has singled out the wrong group. The rich and business owners already pay far too much in taxes. They already sacrifice too much. They already share their wealth too much. The top 1 percent of income earners (almost all of whom are small-business owners) already pay 40 percent of the personal income taxes in America, more than the bottom 95 percent combined.

The top 20 percent of income earners pay almost 100 percent of the income taxes in this country. That means 80 percent of the population pays almost no income taxes and a full 50 percent pay zero income tax.

Mr. Obama said, “Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.” The problem with that statement is that it’s a lie. Let’s get the facts straight. The typical household with more than $1 million in income will pay an average of 29.1 percent in federal taxes this year. The typical household making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent in taxes. Lower-income households (below $50,000) will pay an average of 12.5 percent in federal taxes (most in the form of Social Security taxes). In dollar terms, that means the typical millionaire will pay $290,000 in taxes and the typical middle-class family earning $50,000 will pay $7,500. But most importantly, almost all of that $7,500 is Social Security taxes, which theoretically they will get back after they retire.

Why doesn’t Mr. Obama quote the actual numbers and ask Americans if this sounds fair? One American pays $290,000 in taxes. The other pays $7,500. Mr. Obama calls this “unfair.” As you can see, he’s right. It’s definitely unfair – unfair to the 20 percent of the citizens who pay virtually 100 percent of the cost of government benefits, which are enjoyed for free by the other 80 percent of the population.

Mr. Obama purposely leaves out the fact that the rich and business owners earn their money, many by risking their life savings to start a business. In almost every case, they’ve worked long hours that most people could not tolerate. These small-business owners whose risk and sacrifice create the 9-to-5 jobs for their employees, also pay half the payroll taxes, health insurance and worker compensation costs for their employees. They also pay virtually 100 percent of the taxes in this country to support more than 21 million government employees, one-fifth of whom make more than $100,000 a year for a 9-to-5 job.

If Mr. Obama were honest, he would say, “From now on, everyone who risks their life savings and gives up the security of a five-days-a-week, 9-to-5 job, early retirement and guaranteed pension to start a business must be punished and have their earnings confiscated and redistributed to my voters.”

How would Americans feel about that statement? Sadly, many of the 50 percent who have their hands out but don’t pay taxes would applaud. Remember that famous quote from an Obama supporter: “I just want some of that Obama money.”

It isn’t just small-business owners being discriminated against. Most doctors, lawyers, accountants and other highly paid professionals also sacrifice, many investing countless dollars and hours in their education. After their years of sacrifice and investment, what right does Mr. Obama and his liberal/progressive/socialist cabal have to demonize them for paying only 29 percent in federal taxes so he can buy even more votes from the 50 percent of entitlement takers and nontaxpayers who never sacrificed or invested?

Why won’t Mr. Obama have an open and honest discussion with America about this? The answer is that the progressive left (i.e., socialists) hate facts. The facts tell the true story. The rich already are paying more than their fair share, sacrificing more, risking more, working longer hours and shouldering almost 100 percent of America’s income tax burden. Now is not the time to target, demonize and punish them. Now is the time to reward them. It’s time to stop class warfare and tell the truth.

The cold, hard truth is that the rest of America – the poor, the lower-middle class, the unions and the government employees have to pull more of the load. The reality is that Mr. Obama’s voters get a free ride as a bribe to vote, support and contribute to the president. Yes, we need more “fairness.” The problem is that Obama voters – those doing the most protesting and complaining – are the ones who need a refresher course in the definition of “fair.” They want something for nothing. It’s not just that they want it, they expect and demand it. It’s no surprise when pollsters ask Obama voters whether others should pay higher taxes, they emphatically answer “yes.” Why not? It costs them nothing, and they get 100 percent of the benefits.

So, Mr. Obama is right. Let’s make the tax system fairer. Let’s ask Mr. Obama’s voters to sacrifice, contribute and bear at least a little more of the load.

One last thought: If Warren Buffett and his jet-set billionaire crowd don’t like the 15 percent capital gains rate, instead of lying about the facts and hurting the small-business owners who create almost all the jobs, they can simply reclassify all their capital gains as regular income and pay the full 35 percent tax rate. If they still think that’s too low, the superrich liberals of the world can voluntarily pay 100 percent of their income as a gift to the poor. No one is stopping them. Let’s see them put their money where their mouths are. Unfortunately, that’s not Mr. Buffett’s agenda. His agenda is keeping taxes so high on the rest of us that we can never compete with him. He’s already got his $45 billion.

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice-presidential nominee and author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution With God, Guns, Gold, Gambling & Tax Cuts” (Wiley, 2009). He writes at

I’m sick of Warren Buffett – Tea Party Nation

President Barack Obama and Warren Buffett in t...

Image via Wikipedia

I’m sick of Warren Buffett – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips on August 15, 2011 at 11:49am in Tea Party Nation Forum

Warren Buffet is a wealthy man.  He has made an incredible amount of money from our free market system.   But when it comes to politics, he is about as far to the left as Obama.  He is now whining that the rich should be taxed more.

 From Warren Buffett in the New York Times:

 OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

 The full story is here:…

 I am sick of his whining bovine scatology.  The reason Buffett paid less is he has an army of accountants and tax lawyers who go out and found deductions for him. 

 He is a hypocrite.  If he wants the rich to pay more, he could start by not taking any deductions from his income taxes.  Oh wait, you mean he doesn’t want to do that?

 How about stroking the government a check for $10 billion?  Buffett was an Obama supporter.  I’m sure he can call the White House and get Obama on the phone.   I’m sure for that, Obama would even give you a Rose Garden ceremony.

 What Warren Buffett does not tell you is the deep dark secret of the liberal billionaires.  Buffett talks about how much he paid.  Based on that, his taxable income was probably around $42 million.  That’s a lot, right?  According to Forbes Magazine, Warren Buffett’s net worth is approximately $62 Billion!

 The income tax taxes income, not wealth.  The people it hits the hardest, other than the middle class, are those who are in the process of creating wealth.  Buffett does not care.  He can pay more taxes.  He has created his wealth and there are many ways he can avoid paying taxes on that wealth.

 The dirty secret is for the billionaires; they are members of the club.  They like being the members of the club but do not want anyone else to be members of the club.  A sharply progressive income tax prevents others from joining that club.  If we had the income tax system Buffett prefers when he was a young man, just starting Berkshire Hathaway, he would not be one of the richest men in the world today.

 Warren, if you want to give all of your money to the government that is fine with me.  They even have a process where you can give gifts to the Treasury. Do not tell me taxes need to go up.  Government spending needs to go down.  It needs to go way down.  The government needs to let people keep more of their hard earned money. 

 That even includes liberal dolts like you.