Treat the Tax-Me-More Crowd to a Voluntary Additional Tax

Leave rates and rules where they are, but add a line to tax returns for a VAT—a voluntary additional tax.

As the clock ticks toward a tax increase scheduled to take effect at year end, expect to hear a lot from the “tax me more” crowd.

These are wealthy individuals who profess to favor increases in their own tax bills. A series of recent articles help define the genre, which was pioneered by Warren Buffett last year in his New York Times op-ed piece that ran under the headline “Stop Coddling The Super-Rich.”

The first article, published at Bloomberg View on November 22, comes from two money managers, Whitney Tilson and Anthony Scaramucci

The second article, published by The New York Times on Novermber 25, is by Steven Rattner, who reportedly works managing about $5 billion of Mayor Bloomberg's money notwithstanding an order by the Securities and Exchange Commission in November of 2010 that barred him for two years from associating with any investment adviser of broker-dealer.

There’s a certain amount of overlap between these articles, almost enough to suggest a coordinated campaign. Tilson and Scaramucci write, "we believe the tax rate for capital gains and dividends, currently 15 percent, should be raised to 20-25 percent. Finally, while some of our friends might not speak to us again for writing this, carried interest, which is the primary source of income for private fund managers such as Governor Romney and ourselves, should be taxed as the regular income that it is. This is one of the most egregious loopholes in the entire tax code.”

Rattner calls the current tax rate for capital gains and dividends “absurdly low” and declares, “Personally, I would go further and raise the capital gains rate to 28 percent.” Like Tilson and Scaramucci, Rattner also calls for inceasing what Rattner calls "the indefensibly low 15 percent tax rate on the famous ‘carried interest,’ the fee received by private equity and certain hedge fund investors.”

Rattner ridicules the possibility that such tax increases would drive Americans offshore, damage small businesses, or adversely affect the incentive to invest. But consider that such tax increases would come, as Rattner concedes, in conjunction with a new 3.8 percent Medicare tax. And consider, too, that many states also tax capital gains, at rates that in 2013 will top out at 13.3 percent in California and at 12.696 percent in New York City.

Under the Rattner plan, the top federal tax rates on long-term capital gains would more than double, to 31.8 percent (28 percent + 3.8 percent). New York or California taxes could bring the total up to the neighborhood of 45 percent. In Hong Kong, Singapore, and Switzerland, by contrast, which compete against America in the global economy, the capital gains tax is zero.

Mr. Buffett himself weighed in again on November 26 with another New York Times piece that also targeted “carried interest” (which is how his competitors get paid) and dismissed concerns that tax increases would deter investment.

Alas, the “tax me more” crowd wins this debate even if taxes don’t go up. That’s because every minute spent debating higher taxes on capital gains and carried interest (which is just a variety of capital gains) is a minute not spent talking about how the deficit problem is really a spending problem, the result not of revenue shortfalls but rather the fact that an extra trillion dollars or so of annual spending—TARP, the stimulus, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars—has now become part of the budget baseline. It becomes an argument about “Why don’t the rich pay more?” instead of a discussion about “Why don’t the politicians spend less?” or “How can we increase economic growth?”

How then, to respond? One way for advocates of lower taxation to reply to the “tax me more” argument is with a variation on what House Republicans call the “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act of 2011.” Leave the tax rates and rules where they are, but add a line to the tax return for a VAT—not a value added tax, but a voluntary additional tax.

Call it the Rattner-Tilson-Scaramucci Tax, or the Buffett Tax. The instruction lines could read something like, “If you think carried interest is an egregious and indefensible loophole, please enter the additional tax you would owe on your own carried interest if it were taxed as ordinary income here. And if you think the capital gains rate should more than double, please enter the additional tax you would owe here, too. Remember, this means you think the politicians and their lobbyist friends can spend this money better than you can invest it, spend it, or give it away yourself, or that you think for some reason that the politicians are not going to spend this money but are really going to use it for debt reduction.”

The state of Massachusetts tried a similar approach in 2001 when it lowered its state income tax rate. It added a line to the state tax return that allowed taxpayers to voluntarily pay the old higher rate. The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore reports that each year about 1,000 Bay State taxpayers choose the higher rate; Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren was not among them. If a voluntary additional tax at the federal level, like the Massachusetts one, doesn’t raise much at all in the way of revenues, at least it would have the advantage of clarifying that the “tax me more” clamor isn’t really so much about voluntarism as about trying to force others to pay.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Only an idiot would voluntarily ask for tax increases.

  • Robert Enders||

    Not necessarily. Only an idiot would ask for a tax increase if they expected Congress to answer with a "yes". To ask for a tax increase without actually receiving that increase can make you look altruistic to actual idiots with lower incomes.

    "Gee, I'd love to share my money with you, but Congress won't raise my taxes."

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I stand by this: People who want taxes raised - on themselves - are idiots.

    And double-idiots are those who give in to raising taxes on the "promise" of spending cuts.

  • Ted S.||

    If Warren Buffett thinks that government should take more of his income, let's follow that to its logical conclusion and have government nationalize Berkshire Hathaway.

  • Utilitarian||

    Reduction to absurdity wins every time.

  • Great+Grandma||

    Look at society here is the U.S., there really are a lot of idiots.

  • ||

    I can't figure out Buffett's angle on this one.

  • ||

    I assume that people like Buffett reach a point in their lives where they need or want to adopt certain positions for PR reasons. They estimate how much their promoted policies might cost, and they weigh that against how popular, hip, and cool it will make them with their targeted audiences and the media that they want amplifying their every word.

    This explains why celebrities talk about saving the environment while they consume a few small cities worth of resources every year, all by their lonesome.

  • Sevo||

    Buffett is a lying bastard.
    His company is either still in the process or perhaps lost a bid to beat the tax man out of a sizable chunk of money.
    And you'll notice that his charitable donations go to a private organization that demands results, not to the government to waste.

  • Loki||

    Or these shitstacks could just go to the treasury's website and make a gift to the treasury.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'll bet it's racist to post that link, Loki.

  • T o n y||

    Taxation is always about forcing. A voluntary tax is an absurd idea, especially coming from people who think people are always rational with their money.

    I realize that if libertarians ever got off the hobbyhorse of condemning the poor and elderly for being moochers and started realizing it's the wealthy who have indeed been "coddled" in recent decades, then there would be no point to you existing.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And if/when you ever realize how much hatred you have of rich people, you might come to the conclusion that such hatred has been misplaced all along and that it accomplished absolutely nothing.

    Which is what higher taxes will also accomplish.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And all that on top of your hatred of straight people, too.

  • iggy||

    And the coddling of the wealthy is the direct result of the same welfare state that breeds low income dependence on government programs.

    It's almost like the problem you're complaining about is actually your fault.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Almost? Shit, iggy, you nailed it. Now Tony's going to have to flop on his princess bed and cry himself to sleep.

  • T o n y||

    Don't whine about my jocular heterophobia if you're going to make these kinds of comments, butch.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck you, asshole.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, and it's not jocular if you actually mean it.

  • T o n y||

    You really fancy yourself a telepath don't you.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Really, no. And neither is Chris Matthews.

  • T o n y||

    Ah the libertarian catchall. We're not going to talk about welfare for the rich all that much, but when we do it's the fault of government per se, of course. Because without government the poor would do so much better relative to the rich.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I didn't vote for Romney, but he was spot-on when he said that Democrats use welfare as bait for votes from poor people.

  • T o n y||

    And you're just too clever to be sucked in?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I refused to vote for Republicans or Democrats in the general election, so yes, I guess you could say "too clever" if it makes you feel better.

    Still, Romney was right - welfare is the bait used by Democrats to win votes.

  • iggy||

    Libertarian catchall? So government subsidies and government handouts to the rich aren't coddling the wealthy?

    Yes, by the way, without government picking winners and losers, lower income and middle class people would be more able to run small businesses and compete with the big boys. But when the government gives handouts to Walmart and big banks at the expense of retailers and small banks that aren't politically connected, it creates a class system that didn't exist before.

    So yes. Dependence on welfare and corporate subsidies do hurt the poor relative to the rich.

  • Rhino||

    "relative to the rich." That's where you're going wrong. That jealous comparison. If, instead, you looked at the world through just "the poor would do so much better," part of that sentence, and you'd have much more fair and moral opinions.

  • ||

    Why does the government give money to billionaires, say, to fun ball parks?

    Eh, Tony?

  • T o n y||

    I don't hate rich people. I certainly prefer their company to that of poor people. When might you realize that your dishonest, cheap psychobabble is just a way for you to ignore all rich-coddling policy in favor of blaming everything on the most vulnerable?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Okay, you *claim* to not hate the rich, yet you parrot the "taxing the rich will solve all our problems, also they suck" line used by your fellow travelers.

    Nice to see you also hate poor people, though. Says a lot about you.

  • T o n y||

    I don't hate anyone. I have never expressed an emotional sentiment about the rich other than how much I like their boats. The issue is the fiscal soundness of the US government, and the single biggest policy choice made that negatively affects that today were the Bush tax cuts. Raising taxes in order to deal with a budget imbalance is usually considered a proper thing for governments to do. The only one injecting emotion into the matter is you, in order to distract from the fact that you're a goose-stepping wealth apologist.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Bullshit. You've expressed hatred on more than one occasion, just like most of your leftist kind.

    I don't go around claiming that tax hikes will solve our problems, nor do I use emotion when talking about economics - I leave that to you and your fellow-traveler kinfolk.

  • T o n y||

    My family is rich. I am not so bad off myself. I do not hate rich people, and understand their motivations with respect to tax avoidance pretty well. There is no way I have ever expressed "hatred" of rich people. That's just what you jerkoffs call it whenever anyone calls for any tax hike on them, ever. The reason for that is because you've been supplied bullshit talking points by goose-stepping wealth apologists with radio shows.

    And I never said a tax hike will solve all our problems either. So you're just making bullshit up all over the place.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You just admitted hatred of poor people, so why should we believe anything else you say?

    But, hey, if a tax hike won't solve anything... why insist on it? Your only honest answer would consist of "getting back at the rich", or some variation on that theme.

    Which is ALL a tax hike will do. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to raise them.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    While you're at it, cleanse your soul and admit you get YOUR anti-wealthy talking points from hateful goons on the radio like Ed Schultz.

  • T o n y||

    There is a rather large spectrum between "nothing" and "everything." You do realize that, right? Raising taxes on the rich will raise some revenues, if you'll pardon the redundancy. Not enough to close the budget gap, no, though we could get awfully close if we raised taxes on everyone to the pre-Bush rates.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Read my link to Walter Williams, though you'll likely dismiss him as just an Uncle Tom.

    Raising taxes won't do jack shit.

  • iggy||

    Define 'awfully close.' I don't think getting 1/10th of the way there is awfully close. More importantly, if the government increases taxes why do you think they'd use it pay down debt? Knowing Obama and the current crop of Dems, what makes you think they wouldn't just try to raise spending another 100 billion dollars?

  • ||

    Tony doesn't care if that money is used to pay down the debt. He just wants his team to do it so he can sing Obama's praises with the rest of the limousine liberal crowd.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And I never said a tax hike will solve all our problems either.

    The issue is the fiscal soundness of the US government, and the single biggest policy choice made that negatively affects that today were the Bush tax cuts.

    Oops.
  • ||

    I'm not getting Tony's or Frik and Frak's call for more capital gains tax logic either.

    My family is "wealthy" too and we don't ask to be taxes more. These days even 100k a year is considered "rich" because of the pathetic left-wing narrative. I can't understand how for the life of me how ANYONE who risked their own capital in the markets - be it real estate or equities - would advocate for more capital gains or dividend taxes. It blows my mind.

    Capital gains and dividens are "gateway incomes" to prosperity. Just leave it alone for fucksakes.

    Here in Quebec, same garbage. My friend's boss at a big pharma company with a lot at stake in real estate actually supports the insane poppycockiness of the Parti Quebecois and their strategy of raising taxes to pay for Quebec's retarded debt.

    To say nothing of supporting a parochial party that advocates the break up of Canada only further depressing our real estate values.

    She's irrational and letting ideology get in the way of sound investment decisions.

    Quebec's problem isn't taxes. We have the highest on the continent - hear that? The problem is we're corrupt, waste money and have a lavish social welfare apparatus we can't afford; and where can't pay we have Alberta subsidize it.

  • ||

    Part II.

    Moreover, we have a gargantuan public sector and union membership issue that sucks the living hell out of our coffers. Quebec, with a population of 7 million, has something like double the amount of civil servants than Ontario and a pop. of 11 million and, get this, California who have 37 million!

    It's nuts.

    It's a system only people like Tony could love because, well, it's "free!"

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The issue is the fiscal soundness of the US government, and the single biggest policy choice made that negatively affects that today were the Bush tax cuts.

    Right, because it wasn't the exponential increase in spending that affected it.

    Revenue to GDP during the Eisenhower years: 17.52%

    Revenue to GDP during the Bush years: 17.07%

    Clearly the Bush tax cuts didn't amount to shit.

  • Utilitarian||

    Mr. FIFY: Non sequitur. Hating the rich does not logically follow from "raise taxes on the rich".

  • califernian||

    Libertarians like myself would be thrilled to eliminate every single state and federal policy and subsidy that benefit the rich. However, I don't think you and I would agree on what those are.

  • ||

    I don't know. Doesn't Reason talk about corporate welfare?

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    A voluntary tax is an absurd idea, especially coming from people who think people are always rational with their money.

    So you admit it then, paying taxes is lighting money on fire?

  • T o n y||

    No, it's one of the more sound investments people are capable of making.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, all adults should be treated like children. Typical leftist thought.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    If we assume then that people are rational and paying tax is a sound investment, then why again is a voluntary tax an absurd idea?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Because involuntary tax hikes won't do shit to fix our problems, either.

  • T o n y||

    Because people will rationally choose to be freeloaders--they get the return on the investment just by living here. Hence the necessity of compulsion.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Poor people don't make enough to pay taxes, so... who's the freeloader, again?

  • T o n y||

    Because the federal income tax is the only tax!

    Please FIFY would you regurgitate some more bullshit rightwing plutocrat apologist talking points? I'm not quite sure I know them all absolutely perfectly yet.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'd need to start regurgitating them first.

    I'm one of those low-income people you despise, Tony. I've been told by the likes of you, that unless I make more money, I'm being an unpatriotic mooch.

    Despite my absence of a welfare footprint, mind you.

    Now, then... where were we? Oh, yes - you were looking down your nose at me from your lofty perch. As per usual.

  • T o n y||

    So now I hate the poor too? Is there anyone I don't hate, Dr. FIFY?

    I bet you pay payroll taxes and maybe even sales taxes.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "I certainly prefer their company to that of poor people."

    That, is a thinly-veiled version of how Romney was portrayed by you and your ilk.

    No, I didn't vote for him.

  • T o n y||

    Well they have nicer houses, and sometimes boats. I like boating.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    But they got those houses and boats by - according to your side - cheating the poor and putting their feet on the necks of the workers.

    And other proto-Soviet bullshit.

  • T o n y||

    Only the ultrarich. They top fraction of a percent have really run away with the loot. And not even you can claim they worked so much extra hard to earn it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And not even you can claim they worked so much extra hard to earn it.

    Typical marxist nonsense.

  • ||

    Tony, aside from your Massahchusetts-Liberal-Disease, how do you know they never worked much extra hard?

    This sort of projection is why I consider liberalism to be dead. Especially when it comes to money matters.

    It's like they're incapable of coming up with real, meaningful solutions without using taxes as a main tool.

  • KalkiDas||

    So, if people are not always rational with their money, then what makes government, a group of power-hungry and even more stupid people voted into office by the same irrational people, capable of being rational with other people's money, who bear no consequences for the misuse of that money? If one person is not always rational with their money, then how does adding zeros to right of the number of people change that irrational behavior?

  • ||

    Protip: It's not an "investment" if you have to be forced into making it. Since you've clearly stated that taxes are not voluntary and would have no basis as such, kindly fuck yourself.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 4:48PM |#
    "Taxation is always about forcing."

    Yes, shithead, and I'm sure the thought makes you wet your pants.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Or, worse... it makes him wet someone else's pants.

  • dinkster||

    It is always about the other guys' pants with T o n y.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Ew. Eww ewwwww.

  • Hyperion||

    Gawd, Tony, just when I think you cannot post anything more stupid or pointless than the last thing you posted, you prove me wrong.

    Libertarians do not condemn the poor for being moochers. They condemn lazy SOBs who don't want to work and think that people who are willing to work owe them free stuff, as moochers. And that would be spot on.

    And coddling the rich is the only principles that Libertarians exist for and we would 'cease to exist' without that?

    You really are incapable of having a serious discussion about anything, aren't you? You are just a dumb troll, looks like that pretty much sums up your reason for being here.

  • T o n y||

    The only reason libertarianism exists is as the philosophical justification for every wealthy-coddling policy dreamed up by corporate-subsidized economists in Chicago or corporate-subsidized think tanks in Washington.

    I realize that to maintain a veneer of consistency you in principle oppose welfare for corporations and the rich, but when are you ever, *ever* going to call for any policy to rectify that (such as raising their taxes above where their lobbyists have gotten them set)?

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 5:19PM |#
    "The only reason libertarianism exists is as the philosophical justification for every wealthy-coddling policy dreamed up by corporate-subsidized economists in Chicago or corporate-subsidized think tanks in Washington."

    Shithead takes a stab at psycho-babble, fails.

  • Hyperion||

    Do you have anything to say that is based even slightly in reality? Or are you just going to keep on trolling with this utter non-sense?

  • T o n y||

    It's not nonsense. Follow the money. Shit, follow the money to this very publication.

    Libertarianism as an economic-political doctrine isn't taken seriously by academia apart from the corporate-subsidized professorships that exist to prop it up. And no it's not a conspiracy by leftists to keep you out.

  • iggy||

    'Follow the money to this very publication.'

    And thus the fabled Koch brothers make their first appearance. Fresh off their recent evil expedition, in which they cruelly gave money to fund the arts, NOVA and gay rights, Kochtupus has returned to steal all of our money!

    Let's run through the rest of your dipshit post.

    Libertarianism isn't taken seriously by academia? You mean the same group of people who cheerled eugenics, the Soviet Union and Fascism, even after the horrors those three things engendered? I think I'll live without their support.

    'Corporate subsidized professorships.' I think the number of Marxist/Pseudo-Feminist/Gender studies goons in academia far outnumber any evil libertarian theorists in their midst. I love that when liberals run an institution the fact that literally ANY outside voice exists is cause for concern.

  • T o n y||

    The Kochs probably believe they are consistently libertarian--I bet they even justify their massive government welfare haul as rational self-interest.

    Yes academia's famed association with fascism. I suppose the reason intellectuals are always among the first expelled or murdered by fascists is just proof of their stupidity.

    Seriously? Academia has gotten things wrong. It's also been the source of every important new successful idea too. Where do you go for new information? People who don't think but just talk? And talk about how all of academia is in a conspiracy against them? Who's really echoing fascism here?

    Yeah real academics, whom you stereotype as all doing gender studies, outnumber libertarians. That's the point. But the libertarians who are there are almost all being paid for by corporate interests to shill for them. You cannot articulate a bigger intellectual conflict of interest that that.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    They don't engage in just gender studies, Tony... there are other griefer study courses available.

  • iggy||

    HAHAHAHAHHAHA! 'It's also been the source of every important new successful idea?' What?

    Virtually all economic growth and improvement in the lives of individuals came from outside academia. So was banking the result of academia? How about the industrial line? The constitution? The majority of computer advances, decreases in food prices, genetically modified food...which of these primarily owe their existence to academia? There might be some crossover for some of them, but the majority of good ideas come from the market, not academics.

    Define real academic? If you mean people teaching the sciences or engineering, then none of them have any notable opinion on libertarianism since their subjects have nothing to do with it. The people criticizing libertarians are all poli-sci professors and Keynsian economists, none of whom I have any respect for. I actually was a poli-sci and economics major before going into law, so I know what I'm talking about when I say the majority of academics in 'soft sciences' are totally unworthy of anyones respect.

    Keep genuflecting before the altar of Top Men, Tony. I'm sure the next time academia flies to a totalitarian extreme it will end way better than last time.

  • T o n y||

    Blah blah blah. All you're really saying is your academics are better than mine, even though yours are all third-rate.

    Yes I'm including the sciences, though I don't know about engineers. You don't have respect for Keynesian economists (otherwise known as mainstream economists) and political scientists because they disagree with your preconceived bullshit.

    We all consult experts for the best information. We who don't are called idiots.

    Even if the innovations you talk about didn't come directly from universities (and many do), they came from people educated at good universities. The market without education is an unsophisticated market that doesn't innovate.

  • ||

    Actually, I became more imaginative after I left university. I'm willing to be along Iggy that some of our greatest achievements came from minds that either were rejected by the "mainstream" you hold so dear or didn't waste their time at school.

    Edward Gibbons spent some time in the Decline pasting academia. Seems like the same observations we have today were applicable in his time.

    I find university did very little to expand my pitiful mind. If anything, it turned me off to think so many of those idiots were the future.

    People like in that Wal-Mart protest.

  • ||

    The market without education is an unsophisticated market that doesn't innovate.

    Academia != education.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 6:59PM |#
    "their massive government welfare haul as rational self-interest."
    Cite, shithead.
    ------------------
    "Yes academia's famed association with fascism."
    Shithead, you ignored communism. Please address, shithead
    ------------------
    "Academia has gotten things wrong. It's also been the source of every important new successful idea too."
    Yep, so long as you include anyone who ever went to school.
    Shithead, there is zero support for that claim.
    ------------------
    "But the libertarians who are there are almost all being paid for by corporate interests to shill for them. You cannot articulate a bigger intellectual conflict of interest that that."
    Uh, shithead, are you familiar with the English language? Would you please translate that into English?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Yes academia's famed association with fascism. I suppose the reason intellectuals are always among the first expelled or murdered by fascists is just proof of their stupidity.

    Well, yeah, pretty much. Academia's modern obsession with intellectual fashion ends up being their downfall every single time.

  • ||

    What's an academia?

    A nut?

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 5:28PM |#
    "Libertarianism as an economic-political doctrine isn't taken seriously by academia apart from the corporate-subsidized professorships that exist to prop it up."

    Yeah, shithead, the brain-deads in victims' studies really don't care for it at all.

  • CE||

    Many of us here opposed the TARP bailouts, you will recall.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Why raise their taxes, Tony w/spaces, when I can just force them to compete on a level playing field by simplifying the tax code (fair share, bitches!) and shutting down regulatory agencies that they can capture and bend to their own purposes?

  • Jordan||

    Once again, we have to endure a TARP/UAW bailout/green subsidy/Fed/fractional reserve lending/gargantuan regulatory state supporter telling us that we advocate government subsidies for the rich. Let us know when you pass the Turing test, Tony.

  • Calidissident||

    To Tony, not taking money from rich people is coddling, therefore we "coddle" the wealthy. Even though we (unlike him) oppose actually taking money from other people to give to the wealthy (subsidies, bailouts, unnecessary government contracts, the Fed, the regulatory state, etc)

  • T o n y||

    So which policies do you support that would rectify such problems as subsidies and bailouts? Do we punch everyone in the face in the room but the rich guy then say, "Ok, face punching is against the rules!" What do you do about the status quo built by bad government practice? Say it's the absolute best we can do?

    If you determine that the wealthy have been given too much with respect to a free market ideal, would you support raising taxes on them?

  • Jordan||

    So which policies do you support that would rectify such problems as subsidies and bailouts?

    Stopping them. Unlike you.

  • Calidissident||

    I was seriously shocked he asked me such a stupid question, then I remembered it was Tony. I say I don't like bailouts and subsidies, and he responds by asking me which policies I support to rectify them? Shouldn't that be really obvious? But in Tonyland, a government-created problem needs another government-orchestrated solution

  • T o n y||

    So lucky if you benefited from the bailouts and sucks to be you if you were a victim? The status quo is the best we can do?

  • Calidissident||

    Tony, you're the one who supported policies like the bailouts and now you want to assume the moral high ground? Did every person making over $250,000 a year get a bailout or a subsidy? Ideally, you could make everyone pay back the subsidies they got. However, I would never trust the government's ability to manage such a system, or their ability to make such a revenue-raising program a one-time thing. And even if you did do that, it's not like the money's going back into the pockets of the people who paid for it. It would just be more money for the government to piss away

  • Jordan||

    So lucky if you benefited from the bailouts and sucks to be you if you were a victim? The status quo is the best we can do?

    Should we send a bill to anyone who accepted Medicaid and later made it out of poverty?

  • KalkiDas||

    "wealth-coddling" == "reduction in the percentage of that which is expropriated"

  • califernian||

    The only reason libertarianism exists is as the philosophical justification for every wealthy-coddling policy dreamed up by corporate-subsidized economists in Chicago or corporate-subsidized think tanks in Washington.

    You got this exactly backwards. 180 degrees.

    Libertarians do not want to coddle the wealthy with government policies that take money from the poor and give it to them (like social security for instance).

    But you conflate the libertarian position on taxation with some kind of position in favor or wealth transfer to the rich.

    LEAVE EVERYONE ALONE. That's the libertarian view. Oh bother why bother.

  • T o n y||

    "Leave me alone" is the worldview of a surly teenager. Leave you alone to do what? Besides a few things we agree on like drugs and prostitution, what aren't you allowed to do that you think you should be able to?

    Because while your distracted by promises of freedom, policymakers are using your philosophy to loot the country for the wealthy.

  • ||

    Freedom is slavery! War is peace! Ignorance is strength!

  • Tussah1||

    Are you kidding? Cutting the size of the government is the Libertarian policy that will eliminate welfare for corporations, lobbyists, and the rich.

  • ||

    Abusive tax policy and bills of attainder, in addition to being illegal, are also immoral and do nothing to rectify the problem of corporate welfare. Eliminating the corporate welfare would negate the need to rectify the imbalance created by the corporate welfare by creating abusive, targeted taxes. The difference between disingenuous cunt sacks like yourself and serious people is that serious people have principles and would rather address the source of a problem rather than fail to acknowledge the source of the problem and then rely on the source of the problem to correct the problem.

    Maybe some time you can suck the cock of an academic who can adequately explain it to you. Only from the right school, of course.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Taxation is always about forcing.

    You've tipped your hand, and not for the first time.

  • Hyperion||

    Yes, he does occasionally piss into the wind. Today he is just in full-on retarded auto-trolling mode.

  • CE||

    I never condemn the poor for taking government assistance, and I understand why statists want the taxpayers to be forced to help them out (although I disagree with taking money by force, for whatever reason).

    I'm not sure why anyone should be entitled to taxpayer money simply for being old, though, or why liberals think young working people should be forced to support elderly vacationers.

  • T o n y||

    These debates would be a lot more fruitful if you guys would keep silly stereotypes and mental images out of them.

    Old people are a fact of human existence, more so in the last 100 years than ever before. Their needs represent a social cost. That cost is either borne by individuals or society as a whole. When it's the former it means you may have no shot whatsoever to make it on your own because you'll be spending all your money taking care of your aged parents. It also means many old people will simply go without and die starving. Socializing the cost means more opportunity for the young as well as old. Old people who can afford to spend their retirement vacationing are just not relevant to the discussion because there aren't that many of them.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "if you guys would keep silly stereotypes and mental images out of them"

    You first, sport.

  • Doctor Whom||

    I know. I was going to say something about how the anti-irony goggles do nothing.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Do the goggles come from the same company that makes racist dog-whistle decoder rings?

  • CE||

    Hey, I already said supporting the poor is a defensible position. I didn't use any stereotypes. The data show that older people are wealthier than younger people. Why put the wealthier people on the dole?

  • T o n y||

    Older people will always be wealthier than younger people on average since they've had a lot longer to work and save. But yes the gap has been growing recently, but it's not because of some bonanza for old people--the primary cause is large increases in indebtedness of young people. Also, old people tend to own their homes and thus weathered the housing bubble collapse, while younger homeowners were just screwed. The trend has been for younger people to get poorer.

    That doesn't mean that we can afford to eliminate the old-person safety net, since certainly not all old people are financially secure without it, and the government expense on those who are is negligible. Social Security of course is not in crisis, and Medicare, I think, would be a lot better off if it weren't reserved only for the old but were extended to all.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If only those old codgers hadn't been breeders... eh, Tony?

  • T o n y||

    For someone who says openly bigoted things all the time you sure have a giant ass resentful chip on your shoulder.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Uh, sure, whatever.

    *I* don't go around hating gays, so if I were you, I'd shut the fuck up.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "giant ass resentful chip"

    I gave up being a Democrat over a decade ago, Tony.

  • T o n y||

    You notice how nobody pays attention to you but me? Consider if you're doing your movement any good, princess.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wow. I knew you had a huge ego, but... wow.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 7:30PM |#
    "You notice how nobody pays attention to you but me?"

    Now, that's funny, shithead.
    What do you mean 'no one pays attention' to someone who consistently makes you look every bit as ignorant as you are?
    Laughing at your ducking and weaving over MF's calls on your bullshit is very amusing, shithead.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 5:45PM |#
    ..."The trend has been for younger people to get poorer."...

    Shithead, I'm tired of your ridiculous claims.
    Cite or STFU.

  • CE||

    ...you may have no shot whatsoever to make it on your own because you'll be spending all your money taking care of your aged parents.

    False dilemma. Absent taxes to support the elderly, my father wouldn't have had to pay 12% a year into Social Security, and could have saved more for his own retirement. Absent taxes to support the elderly, I would have more to help him out now, and would gladly do so.

  • T o n y||

    Good for you and your anecdote.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Just get on with it and call him a liar, Tony. You know you want to.

  • Butler||

    Better yet, if old people hadn't paid payroll taxes for their whole working lives, they may have *gasp* saved for their own retirement.

    Crazy, right?

    How is it in your world, TONY, that neither old nor young people can afford to pay for old people's retirement on their own, but these people can afford it if the government takes their money by force? Seriously, how does that work? Does the government sprinkly Fed fairy dust on the money to magically make it buy more stuff? Please explain.

  • Calidissident||

    Especially considering that we use a regressive tax to fund the system

  • T o n y||

    How is it in your world, TONY, that neither old nor young people can afford to pay for old people's retirement on their own

    I don't agree with this claim. Some can. Particularly people with the means to do so. But not all will either because they are unable, planned poorly, or had bad luck. I don't think the punishment for those crimes should be destitution and thus early death.

    All government does is make it a guarantee once you get to retirement age, because the point is to make life more secure for both the old and the young. That only benefits capitalism, by the way. Allows for more infusion of young (thus more productive) labor into the workforce, and securing the unpredictable costs that come with being old (for both the old and their families) means more resources are freed up to be entrepreneurial.

  • Calidissident||

    Opportunity cost, ever heard of it? Taking all that money out of the economy and discouraging savings has consequences. You can't eliminate or reduce costs just by socializing them

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 7:16PM |#
    "All government does is make it a guarantee once you get to retirement age, because the point is to make life more secure for both the old and the young."
    Until the government runs out of money, shithead.
    ---------------
    "That only benefits capitalism, by the way. Allows for more infusion of young (thus more productive) labor into the workforce, and securing the unpredictable costs that come with being old (for both the old and their families) means more resources are freed up to be entrepreneurial."
    Horsecrap sophistry, shithead.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 5:46PM |#
    "Good for you and your anecdote."

    You obviously don't know what that word means, shithead.
    That's no anecdote; that's an example, shithead.

  • KalkiDas||

    socializing of the cost means the rich uncle pays the majority, everyone else throws in a token.

  • ||

    keep silly stereotypes and mental images out of them.

    old people will simply go without and die starving.

    Disingenuous cunt is disingenuous.

  • ||

    and started realizing it's the wealthy who have indeed been "coddled" in recent decades

    By "coddled", do you mean "having less money stolen from them, by a very large criminal gang, than you would prefer"?

  • T o n y||

    When the primary means of gaining wealth is to already be wealthy and then invest it at favorable tax rates, in fact it was the rich who used government to steal money for them by pushing those favorable policies.

    You're just too unimaginative to realize that the rich don't need welfare checks to steal from everyone else. They can afford legislators.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 7:19PM |#
    "When the primary means of gaining wealth is to already be wealthy and then invest it at favorable tax rates, in fact it was the rich who used government to steal money for them by pushing those favorable policies."

    Messrs Page and Brin say you're full of shit.

  • Calidissident||

    Lowering tax rates isn't stealing - it's the exact opposite actually

  • T o n y||

    It is if you aren't paying your part for the tax-funded services you receive.

  • Jordan||

    Then everybody on Medicaid is a thief.

  • Calidissident||

    The wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes, even beyond their share of income. Does most government spending go specifically to the wealthy? Most goes to the elderly (and to be fair, some of them are quite wealthy), the poor, and the military and other "public goods" that don't benefit the wealthy more than everyone else (*except for cronyism in the military industrial complex and elsewhere, which I obviously oppose - but that's not the entirety of the spending). Libertarians support getting rid of the subsidies and bailouts that the rich do get, and if you take those away, there's no need to tax them (and you're going to tax people who didn't get those benefits). Unlike liberals, libertarians see getting rid of the government-caused problem to be the solution to a government-caused problem, not adding another layer of government to solve the previous layer

  • TheAstorian||

    It is if you aren't paying your part what I think you should pay for the tax-funded services you everyone else receive(s).

    Fixed.

  • ||

    I don't recall anyone saying they're "always" rational. Rather, it's a choice for them to be rational or irrational.

    I think the folks on this site are far more rational than you, Tony. Datsfirshure.

  • Hyperion||

    Buffet, as well as the rest of these tax me more blowhards know good and well that they aren't going to pay a dime more in taxes and that it will be small business owners who are already struggling to stay afloat that will pay more.

    Pretty soon as cronyism, regulation, and moar taxes continue to expand, there will not be any more small businesses, but only a handful of megacorps that will all be too big to fail. The trend towards that end has been going on for a few decades already.

    Folks like Buffet, have nothing to worry about. Even if they were to pay more in taxes, they will get even more back in corporate welfare and huge tax payer funded bailouts.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    IMO, the real plan is to prevent anyone else from ever accumulating wealth. The Buffetts and Soroses already have theirs, so it's fuck everyone else.

  • Hyperion||

    That, and the progessive sheep are totally compliant in that they don't care if there are only a few mega-rich elitists ruling over us as long as that ruling class are willing to use force to make everyone else more equal, no matter the degree of poverty for all that actually results in.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I can't figure out why, if Tony isn't "mega-rich", he still insists on spouting the bitch-slap-the-wealthy agenda.

    I mean, I *know* why he does it, it's still just kinda of a mystery.

  • Hyperion||

    It seems like Tony used to be one of the more intelligent trolls, but something bad has happened to him. Now, he just talks non-sense all of the time and occasionally gets in an incredibly stupid and irrational comment. That seems to be on the increase all of the time.

    This silly thing he has going on about Libertarians only existing to coddle the rich is beyond non-sensical. Or am I just imagining that most of us are constantly complaining about corporate welfare and bailouts? Does he even know that the Bush tax cuts were for all income levels and that the lowest incomes got the biggest cuts? Does he even know that the government has proven beyond all doubt that they will spend more than they take in no matter how much that is?

    I think he went to an OWS sit in and got hooked on crack or something, he is losing it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    He's gotten, *ahem* more progressively hateful over the past year or so.

  • T o n y||

    I look at cause and effect. Your rhetoric is necessarily balanced with respect to being anti-welfare. The outcomes of your policy positions as taken by legislators has been to tip the scales hugely in favor of the rich. Call it a fluke.

    But it really goes deeper than that--especially for those of you who obsess over property. Most--not all--of you really do support a government whose job is to use tax money to protect the luxuries of the rich but not a dime to provide for the needs of the poor. There is indeed a plutocratic core of property-libertarianism.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Tell us where you live, Tony, so we can eat all your food and shit on your sofa.

    THEN, you can lecture us on our supposed obsession over property.

  • Calidissident||

    Which are our policy positions that have been enacted and helped the rich? Bailouts? Subsidies? Guaranteed loans? The Fed? Competition-suppressing regulations? Look in the mirror buddy

  • Mr. FIFY||

    UAW bosses likely are in at least the top five percent, which puts them close to Evil Wealthy People status.

  • KalkiDas||

    Let's not forget 12 of the 14 wealthiest counties in the US are in the DC metro area. Thinking of the recent prosperity of the DC area always reminds me of this article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/12/.....index.html

  • T o n y||

    They must be really good at capitalism.

  • Calidissident||

    And we all know it's libertarians who support the Leviathan state that plunders the rest of the country to enrich DC

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 5:59PM |#
    "I look at cause and effect."

    You do nothing of the sort, shithead; you spout propaganda.

  • CE||

    Hence the 15 percent tax on the wealthy, and the 35 percent tax on those trying to be wealthy (plus self-employment taxes doubling FICA).

  • DreasMommy||

    Amen! I've been saying this for years; if you're of the mind that you ought to pay more, then by all means, feel free to write the IRS a check.

    However, a great many wealthy liberals who espouse this idea are often the same people who donate precious little to charity. Of their own volition, they are not charitable, so it stands to reason that unless compulsory, they wouldn't voluntarily pay more taxes.

  • Ryan60657||

    Does no one here think that carried interest being taxed at 15% is an abomination? It ought to be taxed at whatever the prevailing rate is for earned income.

  • califernian||

    It should not be taxed.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Blast from the past:

    GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

    But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

    OBAMA: Right.

    GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

    OBAMA: Right.

    GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

    So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

    OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

    Italics for emphasis.

  • T o n y||

    What Obama should have said is that the correlation with capital gains rates and government revenue is specious. Revenue goes up when the economy grows and goes down when it's in recession. That's the real correlation.

    Now you explain what your problem with fairness is.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    My problem with Obama's "solution" was - and remains - the fact that tax increases will do as much good as sticking a bucket under Niagara Falls in order to stop the waterfall.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    IOW, what Barry told Gibson was, to filter it down:

    "I know raising taxes won't help, but it will make people feel better."

    He also recently called voting "the best revenge", which is what leftists want... revenge.

  • Butler||

    Allowing a bureaucrat or politician to determine what is "fair" is historically (and I would say inherently) not fair. Allowing each person to use his time and talent to earn the living that he chooses and to own his own property is inherently fair.

    Oh, and historically, it's also the only way that humans have ever achieved significant growth in prosperity.

    Apparently, you're okay with nominal poverty so long as relative wealth is "fair?"

  • T o n y||

    So it goes without saying that the current policy of low cap-gains tax rates is unfair, since it was set by politicians, n'est-ce pas?

    I do think reducing the gap between the wealthy and the middle class from its current absurd and obscene size is a good policy goal in and of itself. When we get to a point where the rich are being squeezed too much then I'd be happy to entertain a conversation about fairness in the other direction.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And do what, exactly, with that wealth?

    We could take every penny from those evil well-off plutocrats you claim to not hate, and run the government for roughly eight whole months.

    But we could only do that once.

  • Hyperion||

    It doesn't matter. If the federal leviathan continues growing at its current pace, and there is no sign of any willingness at all in DC to even make the feeblest of attempts at slowing it down, then no amount of taxation will stop the collapse. You could tax everyone at 100% of their income and the feds will spend it all and borrow more. We are headed for economic collapse brought on by the greed and power mongering of a handful of corrupt politicians, and the Tonys of the world are cheering it on.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why do you hate brown people, Hyperion?

    /leftist snark

  • Hyperion||

    I do think reducing the gap between the wealthy and the middle class from its current absurd and obscene size is a good policy goal in and of itself

    So, you are against the rampant cronyism that is enriching career politicians and their crony donors and reducing regulations, taxes, and eliminating corporate welfare so that small businesses can compete again? Are you going to write Barry a letter asking that he support those ideas?

  • T o n y||

    I'm against the corporate crony pay-to-play system Newt Gingrich and his fellow Republicans set up, yes.

    Regulations should be socially purposeful and not be solely about impeding competition. If there's a bad regulation of course I'm against it. But you guys are against regulation in general, right? I mean, again, there's never going to be a point when you say, all right, we've deregulated too much, time to tack some on, am I correct?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    But are you against it when Democrats us the same pay-to-play system?

    Oh, please lie and say "yes".

  • Hyperion||

    I'm against the corporate crony pay-to-play system Newt Gingrich and his fellow Republicans set up, yes

    Are you even capable of stopping this delusional team cheer leading, or not?

    The cronyism in MD is at sickening levels and the state is entirely controlled by Democrats. There is not a bigger crony advocate anywhere on earth than in the governors mansion in Annapolis.

    Regulations should be socially purposeful and not be solely about impeding competition

    But that is what they are mostly about anymore. That or some type of favoritism for special interest groups.

    No, Tony, Libertarians are not against regulation for just the fun of it. We are not anarchists and you have been around here long enough that if you actually read H&R posts and are capable of comprehening them, then you know that you are talking pure shit. But again, maybe that is your intention.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Leftists want tax hikes that do nothing but make them feel better, and to regulate for the sake of having regulated.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 6:02PM |#
    "But you guys are against regulation in general, right?"

    Hey, shithead, show us a good regulation. Maybe you could change some opinions.
    But let's see the "good" regulation.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 5:48PM |#
    "So it goes without saying that the current policy of low cap-gains tax rates is unfair, since it was set by politicians, n'est-ce pas?"

    Yes, shithead. It can be made more 'fair' by reducing it and most 'fair' by eliminating it.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 5:30PM |#
    "What Obama should have said is that the correlation with capital gains rates and government revenue is specious"

    Yes, denying reality is part ans parcel of being a lefty, right, shithead?

  • ||

    What Obama should have said is that the correlation with capital gains rates and government revenue is specious. Revenue goes up when the economy grows and goes down when it's in recession. That's the real correlation.

    Lol. And since revenues grow when the tax rate is reduced and are reduced when the tax rate grows, may we transpose that same logic process to extrapolate that raising taxes causes recession and lowering them causes growth? Did it never occur to you that your dueling narratives are mutually exclusive?

  • CE||

    Spending less solves the deficit problem. Cut spending back to 2005 levels, and the deficit goes away tomorrow.

    As for taxes, here are a few plans:

    Alternative Maximum Tax: A 10% flat income tax, maxing out at $10,000 per person. Who gets more than 10K in value from the government? As an added bonus, you can skip reporting the details and avoid an audit if you just send in the $10,000.

    USA Savings Accounts: USA = Unlimited Savings Accounts. No taxes on income from savings and investments. Contribute as much as you want. Withdraw it whenever you want. Improves on the IRA and the 401k in all aspects. This is the retirement savings plan the USA had until 1913.

    Okay, back to reality: I might even accept a bump in the capital gains rate to 20%, if the top income tax bracket is dropped to 20% as well. Wealthy people make almost all of their money from capital gains, so wealthy Dems and Repubs conspired to cut their own taxes to 15%, while leaving working professionals and small business owners with personal rates of 28, 33 or 35 percent.

  • Disgusted Dem||

    I wonder what is the likelihood of inflation in the near future. Given the Fed's "printing" of money to fund the deficit, it doesn't seem that far off in the future and I doubt the Fed's and government's abilities to stop it from happening. In that situation, any increase in the capital gain tax would act as an even greater disincentive to invest and that will have a negative effect on the economy.

  • ||

    Impossible. Everybody knows raising taxes has no economic consequences.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    http://townhall.com/columnists.....page/full/

    "According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August."

    Suck it, leftists.

  • Reverendcaptain||

    A more effective tactic would be a campaign for people to voluntarily forgo all deductions or loopholes and offer some proof that they followed through. If some idiot celebrity could be drafted to lead the campaign then we'd have people like Buffet who claim to want to give away all that excess money be put on the spot. Either join the campaign and get a colored bracelet or STFU.

    The oscars would be the perfect spot for people to sport their hard earned bracelets and show their commitment. And give the rest of us a great opportunity to snicker.

  • dinkster||

    T o n y supports democratically sponsored slavery, because rights exist via vote. I just love throwing that in his face, again and again.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And yet, according to him, he's the intellectual superior, dink.

    Most elitists - left or right - think that way.

  • Mr. FIFY||

  • T o n y||

    You just read the title, didn't you?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Actually, I slogged through the entire column - which should prove that I can, in fact, read, despite never having attended college.

  • T o n y||

    Rights that are actually protected by government enforcement are the only ones I'd feel secure in. You can put your mere rights declarations in one hand and shit and the other, etc.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Or, hope in one hand and shit in the other, waiting for change.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.26.12 @ 7:23PM |#
    "Rights that are actually protected by government enforcement are the only ones I'd feel secure in."

    Shithead, 'rights' protected by any government you favor are worthless.

  • T o n y||

    No I don't. I don't support slavery of any kind.

    But you don't get cosmic bonus points for "believing," as if in Santa Claus. If society enslaves you, you're a slave whether you believe in it or not.

  • dinkster||

    Should I look for your post, word for word?

  • ||

    Owning slaves was a right enforced by the government. All rights are merely privileges provided or secured by government. Ergo, you do support slavery; at least in concept. You just happen to live in a period of time where the government is (thankfully) more enlightened.

  • XM||

    By the way, you guys, raising taxes won't do a thing. We spend so much that we can confiscate the wealth of every 1% folk and it would pay for the operation of the local post for like 30 minutes. I just thought this would be informative news.

    The good news is that every Bison dollar will be be worth five, FIVE British pounds when the British agree to that exchange after Bison kidnaps the queen of England -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shxiy7l5b_4

    Do you guys like Street Fighter?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Check the Walter Williams link above, XM. It describes how many months we could run our government if we took every penny owned by The Evil Rich.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Government should just set up a kickstarter for some extra programs. If the liberal rich want them, they can pay what they think is their fair share -- if not enough people feel the same way, they lose nothing. Much less risk of freeloading.

  • waaminn||

    Sometimes you jsut have to roll with the punches dude.

    www.Tru-Privacy.tk

  • Great+Grandma||

    Good grief folks. The problem with our deficit is certainly NOT a lack of revenue, IT'S TOO MUCH SPENDING!!!!!!! (This country is 80% of the way to insolvency because of the SPENDING!)

    Paying people who can work but choose not to work in order to get government money is just plain S T U P I D! for the government who is going bankrupt and for the person who loses his self respect when he doesn't do anything for himself!

  • XM||

    I honestly, I wish did have some revenue problems. Some of these big businesses are making feeding the beast.

    The market is flooded with adult toys without any real innovation. OMG, the wiiu caught up to the ipad craze.

  • GroundTruth||

    Do enough fools make voluntary contributions to these things to even cover the cost of printing the words on the page?

  • John Galt||

    Bad idea, too often on this continent what starts out voluntary becomes mandatory. Like buying certain types of insurance or joining the Union, as examples.

  • Emily West||

    VAT -- awesome idea

  • Tablet pc||

    There are so much money in the pic

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement