Who said anything about charity? Welfare is not charity. That you would refer to it as such shows me that you're rather ignorant of the purpose of welfare.

Warren Buffet is trying to make a point. Nothing wrong with that. He's actively calling for his taxes to be raised. In the meantime, when Congress start claiming all sorts of things against him, he sets them a challenge - he'll put up, if they do. It's part of a series of political movements to try to get things fixed. First he came up with the "Buffet Rule", regarding taxes for the rich. You know what the Republicans did? They made a bill, called the Buffet Rule Act, that put a checkbox on IRS forms allowing people to more easily donate money to the government. So he said "well then, I'll put up if you do", and challenged the Republicans to put up the money themselves. And when Republicans complained that Democrats weren't included, he expanded it to include Democrats.

But more than that - what point is just giving more money to the government, if the government is currently deadlocked by a party that is dead-set against any welfare spending, dead-set against any tax increases for the rich (not nearly as worried if it's for the poor, though), and dead-set against anything a liberal does? What Buffet is trying to do is to change the system. You think that a few uber-rich liberals giving a billion dollars each will make much of a dent in the debt? You think that Buffet giving a large amount of money to the government would actually inspire the Murdochs of the world to do likewise? If you honestly believe that "he should leave by example" makes sense, then you're less intelligent than I though.

Government works by everyone doing their part. That's how SOCIETY works. Conservatives seem hell-bent on destroying society by turning the system into an "every man for himself" arrangement. And demanding that liberals act independently even as conservatives do everything they can to sabotage the system is just ludicrous.

Idea is to effectively address a common problem.  Idea isn't to score some sort of "I am consistent" points on a mythical scoreboard you have in your head, that you could care less if they actually do it.  You only bring up, "well if they like it so much, they should do it!" argument, because you want to try to end an argument by showing they are inconsistent.  There are things in life where, if insufficient numbers participate, it will fail.  So, why should they contribute more, if it doesn't resolve the issue?

If you want to go with something more useful, look at my original proposal.  Have all those who want to see taxes on the rich, have their tax rates raised (aka, liberals) and have those who want to have the tax rates on rich reduced, lowered.  It is the same thing as what you want, but would actually make a difference.  Well, maybe it is a bit too "collective" to you.  Apparently, the idea of more than one individual doing the same thing at the same time is a concept you probably have a hard time grasping.  Life isn't just a bunch of autonomous individuals working in an uncoordinated manner, doing whatever their whims desire.

It is the same as i want. So why don't they do just that. Nothing is stoping them, They do not have to create any law. They can simply choose to pay what they believe they should be paying. If it is such a good idea and liberals really feel that way, they can all collectivly CHOOSE to do so. That is my only gripe. You are trying to take peoples choices away. Why can't you see that. As a collective people can stillCHOOSE to donate can't they. Can't warren buffet say "hey everyone who agrees with me lets donate 30% of our income and show people what a diference it can make." Life isn't a few individuals forcing others to do as they do, is it? Why is individualty and choice so hard for you? Do you think no one would agree with you so you feel the need to force others?

Why shouild anyone contribute, the issues have only gotten worse the more we have contributed to the government. Why not lower taxes for everyone than, we dont seem to be solving the problem anyways. I mean if thats really your attitude, why try at all?

Than why not force people into labor camps? they aren't doing their part if they aren't wortking are they? Why not force people who burden the health care system to change their diets? they aren't doing their part to help the society if they are using all of the medical resources. Why not force people into the army or police force? they aren't doing their part to help society if they aren't protecting others and puting their lives at risk.

I think we have differnet views of the government. In my view the governmnet is not there to hold your hand from cradle to grave, rather it is there to protect you from other people.

And demanding that people part with what they work for instead of working for yor own is ludacris. Why should i work when i can get others to do it for me seems to be your view.

You have it backwards rich.
Liberal poor will pay less, liberal rich will pay more.

Conservative poor and middle will pay more, conservative rich will pay less.


I for one am totally in support of party-based taxing. Something like, you register as a democrat, your vote automatically goes to the democratic candidate, you pay the democrat taxes. Takes two years to switch around your alignment.

I have even better idea

Conservatives can pay less and will not be eligible to receive social services that they feel are not governments function to provide
Liberals can pay more and be eligible to receive social services they think government should provide

Oh and let people including liberals choose whether their service provider is government or private.

Free market wins :)

Sounds great, sign me up.

As with the product themselves, I sure they will find a way to write off the taxes as well.

The proposal is what the proposal is.  That proposal is that rich conservatives get their taxes cut.  Middle and lower class conservatives keep their taxes where they are.  Anyone who is liberal has their taxes raised.

The added feature of getting benefits or not can be added.

It isn't to be voluntary, because liberals believe it is mandatory.  So, you make it mandatory for them to have it.  You carry out fully the desires of what they want done with the tax code.  To make it voluntary is to end up making it go against what they wish.  This is the collective wishes of liberals, so hold them to it.  

And government IS a few people forcing others to go along with it. The heart of government is legitimized use of force to get people to comply with standards that are seen as acceptable norm.  Conservatives are more likely to want to go to war, to get rogue nations to comply.  Laws are passed to prevent behavior that is seen is objectionable.  Liberals want corporations to play by stricter rules and be regulated, and want people pay what they see as their fair share for the greater good.  Reality is, most people believe, if left to their own devices, they wouldn't shape the world the way they like its, so the idea is to have government to make sure there is sufficient complaince for the greater good.  And all this needs to be paid for, so there needs to be taxes to pay for it.