Not sure if this has already been brought up but I would argue that perhaps, and I stress the word perhaps, they believe that while donating to charity is a more worthwhile and effective action,  progressive taxation aids in collecting from those who do not donate, or donate an insignificant amount of their income.

Donate to charity (which cannot be coerced) would be the ideal situation to them, but when not actively pursued, progressive taxation (can be coerced) acts as the best substitute.

Although I would agree with Rath, going by your judgment here, not donating to the treasury wouldn't necessitate that he'd be a hypocrit.

My wages are not included.( for the simple reason that otherwise there would be double taxation, I pay income taxes on my wages too).

Check any earnings report if you don't believe me...

This is kind of basic accounting......( and I'm not an accountant but come on there's basic stuff..)

By the way pretty much everything on that page you links refers to personal income and not company income, things are more complex and different for companies...

The simple way to explain it is that you pay taxes as a business on your revenue minus your costs. Worker wages and investments in machines is a cost.

These page explains it more clearly :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_income

Dividend however isn't a cost which make them the only thing that actually get double taxed ( the company pays taxes on them as they are part of the net income and the person receiving the dividend pay taxes again, which is why they have become much less popular these days).

PS : With your formula very few companies in the world would be profitable LOL.

Generally speaking I believe the biggest issue in the US isn't the government debt but the debt held by the households.

Due to the high level of debt (that was increased by the latest crisis) that many households have, any stimulus that the government could do isn't likely to help the economy much ( which is the reason for the weak effect of the latest stimulus).
The reason is that many households are struggling with debt or trying to reduce it and as a result any extra money they will get through temporary stimulus or tax cuts will go toward that debt and sadly paying debt hardly create jobs..

That is one of the big issues with the US economy in my view. Easy access to credit boost sales of product in the short term but actually reduce them in the long term as people have to pay that debt afterward and the finance industry just doesn't create that many jobs based on the debt it holds....

It's better for the long term to haev the majority of people's income go toward the purchase of manufactured good than toward paying interests on debt ( especially credit card debt where the interests are punishing and really reduce your buying power..)

Carrying a credit card balance is like the worse thing you can do for the economy.....

Before the economy starts kicking and screaming again, that debt needs to be adressed ( it was ignored for decades as the boost in the real estate market allowed people to keep piling on more debt with little effect as the price of houses was increasing too...)

This guy is a nut. Don't listen to him, or anybody like him, if rich people like him want to pay more taxes, they are free to do so. Ever wonder why none of them do that? It's obvious isn't it? They don't want to pay any more taxes than they have too. They can afford good accountants who use any and all loopholes in the system, add to that the fact that his taxable "salary" is pretty small in 2006 he made only $100,000, the rest was contributions to stocks and other such investments. As such, he really doesn't get taxed a whole lot. And he obviously thinks people are stupid enough to believe he actually wants to pay more taxes. No, this is just him trying to drum up support for his leftist cronies failed tax and spend policies by claiming he wants to be taxed more. While he bolsters their positions, he also gains popularity among the sheep in our society who think he is a "good man" for "wanting" to be taxed more. What a fucking joke.

I have heard that household debt is actually down since the crisis has started, somehow...

It is down 1 trillion ( down to 11.5 trillions from 12.5 trillions).

There's several reasons for this :

1- Foreclosure , the huge majority on the household debt is in mortgage, as people go in foreclosure their mortgage gets wiped out...

2- No more refinancing to get money out of your house ( which increases debt).

3- Stricter borrowing policies, it is actually very hard these days for people to get mortage approved or get loans if they have less than pristine credit score. As the majority of people keep paying their existing debt, and you reduce the capacity for people to take on new debt, overall debt goes down..

3- Some slight reduction in credit card debt ( like I said some americans took advantage of the latest stimulus to reduce their debt and are still doing this right now which is one reason for the weak economy, even if for the long term it is a good thing).

The reduction in credit card debt is good for the future.

The dificulty to get mortgage not so much because people still have to pay to have a roof over their head one way or another so that is not helping the economy..

Just curious, but how did the stimulus have an effect on credit card debt when no one in the general populace got money from the program? Why would this stimulus have effected said debt when every other stimulus pushed (twice under Bush) no one to pay down their debts?

I am talking of the last Obama stimulus.

Pretty much everyone in the general populace benefited from it as it cut 800$ from payroll withholding for families and 400$ for single person and it extended unemployment benefits for those without a job so if you are part of the working class in the US you did enjoy it.

I'm not saying it helped a lot reduce credit card debt.

What I'm saying is following the financial crisis many americans have started to try to reduce their debt and any stimulus is most likely going to be used that way by americans instead of being put toward spending more...

The first stimulus under Bush did not get used toward reducing debt as the movement to reduce debt hadn't really started in the general population.. It's really something that started around 2009. I'm not sure about the timing of the second but I think it actually was at the time when the debt was starting to reduce heavilly..

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/15/news/economy/household_debt/

While the current meme is that corporations are 'sitting' on their cash because they’re greedy, the truth is that they’re holding off on investing and creating jobs because they don’t know what the economic environment will look like 12 to 24 months from now. To create an analogy that most people can understand, if you were an employee in a company that was losing money and laying-off employees but you received a substantial raise would you be likely to spend that money or are you going to save it?

The same basic rules apply to companies, and (after the crisis in 2008) many companies have realized that they have been operating with too small of reserves and have been too dependent on credit. Many people may not remember this, but in 2008/2009 there were many companies that were in significant trouble because they depended on short term credit to cover their payrolls, inventory and other expenses; and without access to this credit they were (effectively) insolvent. Without confidence in the banking system, which is hurt both by the 2008 crisis and the current crisis in Europe, companies are going to want to build up cash reserves in case they face similar circumstances.

Finally, while the supporters of the Democrat party love it, no one is certain what the impacts of Obamacare (or other reforms) are going to be. While supporters have faith that it will bring down costs, businesses are afraid that the costs per-user are going to continue to escalate and they will be forced to cover more employees resulting in their healthcare costs increasing much more rapidly than they were before the bill was passed. If you’re afraid that your labor costs are going to dramatically outpace your revenue growth you’re probably going to try to limit or reduce your labor.

Warren Buffet is a really smart guy.