© Minyanville
10%?
20%?
Actually, you can count them on both hands -- and still have two fingers left over.
Salon's Peter Finocchiaro asked all 400 people on the list -- each with a net worth of at least $1 billion -- "Are you, like Warren Buffett, willing to pay higher taxes?"
Lo and behold, a grand total of eight of the richest 400 Americans said yes.
Writes Finocchiaro:
The results are in. Of 400 billionaires, only eight (including Buffet) say they are willing to pay more. Three others indicated opposition; one said maybe.The eight?
Warren Buffett, Todd Wagner, James Simons, Leon Cooperman, Mark Cuban, John Arnold, Herbert Simon, and George Soros.
"But," says Finochhiaro, "most declined to comment at all."
He continues:
Oprah Winfrey, who endorsed Obama in 2008, did not respond. Nor did liberal media mogul Ted Turner. Prominent Democratic Party donors from Hollywood such as Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Barry Diller did not express a view. Philanthropists Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg - whom we queried repeatedly - refused to comment on Buffett's argument, even as it became a central part of Washington's political conversation.James Simons, chairman of Renaissance Technologies, "responded with a simple "Yes."
Charles Koch, CEO of Koch Industries "categorically rejected the idea."
Hey, at least he wrote back. That's more than we can say for Oprah -- whose ratings-goosing giveaways have saddled studio audiences with whopping tax bills of their own.
What do we make of this?
We haven't totally figured out yet why Buffett started this whole thing. He seems comfortable with, maybe even seeking, the publicity that goes with taking some sort of stand on this issue. So is Mr. Koch. But I think that most of the rest of these people just don't want that kind of exposure.
Those with more willingness to speak up are the mere millionaires:
[Link]
But this whole issue leaves some important questions unasked:
1) Do some people really need to make salaries, (or have personal incomes) that high?
If I were powerful and influential enough to need servants, bodyguards, more than one residence, etc., then I would probably set up that activity up as some sort of business. Wouldn't I?
If I had a personal income that high, what would I spend it on?
Some professions have a relatively short life span. Like sports or entertainment work. So such a person might save (invest) his earnings so that he could continue to live well after his career was finished.
But if I drive myself to get up to that income level by, say, my 30s or 40s, then maintain it into my 60s or even later, what's driving me? Am I doing it because I'm afraid of something? If so, what am I so afraid of?
I know that the top dogs have legitimate security concerns. And they also have big plans for expanding their power. So do the drug cartels. Any difference?
2) Is income tax the best form of taxation? Is it even really legal in the United States?
Many would answer NO to both questions. They say that a tax on income is at the heart of the Orwellian agenda. It gives the tax authority a great excuse to collect all sorts of personal data about us. It also penalizes production, and will tend to discourage industriousness. And it terrorizes the individual by forcing him to deal directly with a huge government thousands of times more powerful than he is.
The alternative is to tax spending through companies that sell goods. I support this alternative.
3) Does the government know how to spend its income wisely?
Most would answer a resounding "NO!"
So, why give them more of it?
Rich people could give more of their money to the government, or they could start cool little projects that employ people. Most of the richest, apparently, don't want to do either. So, what personal and moral principles are they running on, anyway?
We already know what the answer to that question is for most corporations. However, there are still many corporations that actually exchange valuable products with society. If they are taking the trouble to do that, they can't be all bad. However, the growing opinion is that they would prefer obedient slave workers to freedom-loving workers. So maybe they only produce products to keep the "workers" happy.
The vision I get when I try to make sense of this is of a culture operated mostly by a criminal sub-culture that is in constant fear for its own existence. It can only hold onto power by convincing many others who would normally not be so inclined to view life the same way they do. They believe themselves to be playing some sort of higher game that the "common folk" can never learn how to appreciate, and must never, in fact, be informed of.
From the view of the "common folk" that game consists of stealing from us.
We need to eat, to drink, to be sheltered, to communicate. So how do we prevent this stealing from taking place? We can't expect the Forbes 400, nor the Patriotic Millionaires, to answer that question for us!