posted in: Opinion, Politics 1

When Warren Buffett’s made some specific claims in recent comments on taxes paid by the Super Rich; many Economy Gurus’ put their pennies worth forward on the issues. Some offered pro. Others offered con. Among those who offered Pro. Sentiments, the center of their argument involved the principle “equitable contribution by all”; the rich can be taxed just like everyone else. Those who espoused the Con. point of view stress the argument that the rich are the only creative parties; it is they who do all the innovating. They are the only group to whom kudos are due and to withhold such adulation diminishes the capacity of the community to flourish. One party actually offered for negation the thought that the rich can be expected to act so as to frustrate their obligation to contribute. Both parties then proceed to bash existing tax codes, as well as those regulatory components restraining behavioral excesses, that the history of the community had previously put in place.

None of these other commenters addressed the root problems affecting world economic prosperity. We have lost perspective on what pre-requisite considerations must apply, when specie’s adopts a communal strategy for survival and prosperity. What say you, should the principle “he whose actions bring high SURVIVAL BENEFIT is entitled to a larger share of the prosperity” be the only germane criteria for determining communal persistence? When a human society descends to focus mainly on trivialities, disburses high premium to that end and blatantly ignores the need for upholding the mechanisms which support necessity; can success be expected to occur?.

It is patently clear to many Americans that they whose major source of income descend from un-earned profits; have managed to receive humongous returns while providing very miniscule communal benefits. It is also clear that of such humongous profit, a major % descends through that financial system which gave rise to Wall Street.  Was that not the system intended to be a convenient vehicle through which producers may have access to investor’s capital. Was it intended to be an agency for rampant gambling? Is it unfair to now say that it has become a charnel house of unrestrained profiteering and a source of substantially unfair tax advantage and benefit distribution? Unacceptable disadvantage results for the vast mass of others who strive in the community; educators, food producers, fire and crime preventers, ecology sustainers and many others of those whose efforts shore up the fundamental structure of our civilization. Other institutions make equal and often superior contributions, Universities, Friendly Societies, Non Profit groups, repositories of moral codes, Governmental innovators (NASA, ARMED SERVICES, and FEMA). On what food does this our Investor classes feed that they deserve such privilege.

  1. nathansherlock

    The core question seems to be: Independent of any state coercion or legislation is it possible for an individual to prosper while retaining a desire for social justice and a genuine feeling of compassion for fellow human beings who are suffering or less fortunate? Is it humanly possible for those who have generated huge un-earned income to voluntarily ‘share the wealth’ with ‘the least of these’, if not the community at large? History seems to indicate this is possible but quite rare, which is really a sad commentary on our so called ‘civilization’. Warren Buffet appears to be among the ‘rare’ group as he calls for more taxes on himself and those like him. There is such a thing as the less fortunate, or quite frankly, those who are beyond the reach of any type of ‘fortune’ because of their circumstances. Those of us who are able-bodied, in our younger years and doing ok for ourselves have to care for those with chronic illness and no means to support themselves, the elderly, the disabled, the widows, the orphans, the single mothers, the mentally ill. We do this via direct giving to charity (voluntary) and taxation (involuntary), with the involuntary crowd being the large majority. Those people who say ‘cut spending’ and we will just have to ‘bite the bullet’ are not actually the ones biting the bullet. We simply have to find a balance. I am a conservative and I believe in a free market economy but clearly it is not sustainable without first acknowledging the poor and suffering, then doing something to greatly improve their situation. On the flip side, those who are abusing welfare and other government social programmes must be challenged to put away the ‘entitlement’ mindset and take ownership of their lives. Also, there are certain projects and expenses that the government can dish out to private companies and completely remove this operational and capital expense from their budgets. Examples include road construction/maintenance and public transit – no need to keep this under the government umbrella. Governments don’t build every office building and every piece of infrastructure in any given city, so why are they taking on the ownership of selected infrastructure projects? Is it because they can run these projects more efficiently than the private sector? Is it because they trust themselves more than the private sector to deliver exactly what the people need? So many times governments prove why they should NOT be taking on SO MANY responsibilities which they do not adequately manage. Get rid of these projects off the government books – cut spending!! Anyway, so much can be said here – bottom line is we ‘the people’ have to stop always thinking ‘government’ and start thinking ‘what can I do RIGHT NOW to help, to change things’. Finally, I think Republicans/Conservatives definitely need a better understanding of what ‘Fiscal Conservative’ and ‘Social Conservative’ really mean. A Christian who is more of a ‘Social Conservative’ by definition cannot support a ‘Fiscally Conservative’ position that oppresses those who are already downtrodden – this actually goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Forgive me for being all over the place with my comments.