December 5, 2010
A speech of exemplary clarity, with lots of passion – and data.
Labels:
advocacy,
data,
news,
presentation skills,
remembering,
twentieth-century heroes,
values,
video,
wealth
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ShareThis
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(369)
-
▼
December
(54)
- "See also Lamellophone."
- World's Worst Stories?
- A Maxim (for the new year)
- 12/25
- We live in a universe not of clocks but of clouds.
- Reading, Writing & Speaking
- VAT
- What we mean...
- re: Britton Chance (1913-2010)
- Notes on labels & classifications.
- Dog-blogging: A beautiful millisecond.
- Dog-blogging: Inimitable.
- Like Speaking Another Language
- stranger in your bed
- Snow-day dog-blogging.
- Slogan of the day.
- Want to pay to ...?
- Correction of the day.
- Why You Should Keep Your Face Away From Big Fireworks
- Simple Science
- A metacognitive approach to problem-solving.
- Satisfying stroke sensation.
- Reading us is ok everywhere, we think.
- Start at the "6:00" mark!
- on intercourse & distinctions
- Three clarifications.
- "What is it that most people need, but don't know ...
- "a form of security through obscurity"
- Six.
- Title of the week.
- Week-end Dog-blogging.
- NeuroCooking: Still Safer than the New York Times,...
- "Housekeeping."
- Coffee Break => Truth Data.
- NeuroCooking: Safe for Feds.
- Q & A on Functional NeuroImaging [a follow-up to N...
- Thank you, NeuroCooking friends
- viewpoint
- NeuroCooking Live! Figure 4.
- NeuroCooking Live! Figure 3.
- NeuroCooking Live! Figure 2.
- NeuroCooking Live! Figure 1.
- Reader beware!
- On photographic verisimilitude (or, how to shoot a...
- Just two days away!
- A speech of exemplary clarity, with lots of passio...
- re: Britton Chance (1913-2010)
- Seasonal blogging.
- No, what time is it, really?
- How 'bout them apples?
- re: Two-Faced Mid-Week Dog-Blogging
- Seven days and counting!
- Proofreading is important, part 2.
- Mid-week dog-blogging (special two-faced edition).
-
▼
December
(54)
Interesting. He uses the term greed several times in the speech and seems genuinely upset at the notion of a tax break for the top 1%. He provides data citing the top 1% earn 23% of the income. However, he conveniently left out the fact that the same top 1% pay 38% of the federal income tax bill. The bottom 50% makes about 13% of the income but only pays 2.7% of the federal income tax bill (IRS 2008 figures).
ReplyDeleteHe seems upset that we are "giving" the top 1% a tax break. First off, they are not being "given" anything. They are simply keeping money they earned. But, to passionately say, "we need to systematically take more for those who make more," somehow just doesn't sound as good. Why don't we hear the same pleas for Shaq to stop playing basketball so the 5'4" people of world can get a chance to play in the NBA?
I am not in the top 1% and likely won't be. However, I earn what I make and make do with what I earn. For those so concerned with taxes, please stop trying to make it everyone's problem. If you want to give more to the IRS go for it - there is no law against giving more to the IRS. It's interesting that Warren Buffet, who likes to say he is for paying more taxes, when it came to sharing his wealth he decided to give it to the Gates Foundation (a private non-profit). Why? Why didn't he put his money where his mouth is and give it to the IRS?
One of the major underlying assumptions is that if the rich are taxed more the government will do the right thing with that money. That has never, ever, in history turned out to be true.
The speech is amazing! It's an amazing plea for what Frederic Bastait, in his 1850 book "The Law" called "Legalized Plunder."
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"But, to passionately say, 'we need to systematically take more for those who make more,' somehow just doesn't sound as good."
I agree.