Warren Buffett is paying less tax, personally and corporately, than anytime time in his life.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Miers' Answer Raises Questions

WASHINGTON � Asked to describe the constitutional issues she had worked on during her legal career, Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers had relatively little to say on the questionnaire she sent to the Senate this week.

And what she did say left many constitutional experts shaking their heads.

At one point, Miers described her service on the Dallas City Council in 1989. When the city was sued on allegations that it violated the Voting Rights Act, she said, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.

But the Supreme Court repeatedly has said the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not mean that city councils or state legislatures must have the same proportion of blacks, Latinos and Asians as the voting population.

That's a terrible answer. There is no proportional representation requirement under the equal protection clause, said New York University law professor Burt Neuborne, a voting rights expert. If a first-year law student wrote that and submitted it in class, I would send it back and say it was unacceptable.

Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, also an expert on voting rights, said she was surprised the White House did not check Miers' questionnaire before sending it to the Senate.

Are they trying to set her up? Any halfway competent junior lawyer could have checked the questionnaire and said it cannot go out like that. I find it shocking, she said.

White House officials say the term proportional representation is amenable to different meanings. They say Miers was referring to the requirement that election districts have roughly the same number of voters.

In the 1960s, the Supreme Court adopted the one person, one vote concept as a rule under the equal protection clause. Previously, rural districts with few voters often had the same clout in legislatures as heavily populated urban districts. Afterward, their clout was equal to the number of voters they represented. But voting rights experts do not describe this rule as proportional representation, which has a specific, different meaning.

Either Miers misunderstood what the equal protection clause requires, or she was using loose language to say something about compliance with the one-person, one-vote rule, said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in election law. Either way, it is very sloppy and unnecessary. Someone should have caught that.

Proportional representation was a focus of debate in the early 1980s. Democrats and liberal activists were pressing for Congress to change the Voting Rights Act to ensure minorities equal representation on city councils, state legislatures and in the U.S. House.

They were responding to a 1980 case in which the Supreme Court upheld an election system in Mobile, Ala., that had shut out blacks from political power. The city was governed by a council of three members, all elected citywide. About two-thirds of voters were white and one-third black, but whites held all three seats.

The Supreme Court said Mobile's system was constitutional, so long as there was no evidence it had been created for a discriminatory purpose.

The equal protection clause does not require proportional representation, the court said in a 6-3 decision. In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall said the decision gave blacks the right to cast meaningless ballots.

In response, Congress moved to change the Voting Rights Act to permit challenges to election systems that had the effect of excluding minorities from power. The Reagan administration opposed those efforts, saying they would lead to a proportional representation rule.

Congress adopted a hazy compromise in 1982. It said election systems could be challenged if minorities were denied a chance to elect representatives of their choice�. Provided that nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion of the population.

This law put pressure on cities such as Dallas and Los Angeles and many states to redraw their electoral districts in areas with concentrations of black or Latino voters. The number of minority members of Congress doubled in the early 1990s after districts were redrawn.

In Dallas, Miers supported a move to create City Council districts so black and Latino candidates would have a better chance of winning seats.

She came to believe it was important to achieve more black and Hispanic representation, Hasen said. She could have a profound impact as a justice if she brought that view to the court. So from the perspective of the voting rights community, they could do a lot worse than her.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino also emphasized that Miers' experience was more important than her terminology.

Ms. Miers, when confirmed, will be the only Supreme Court Justice to have actually had to comply with the Voting Rights Act, she said.

Even he see the unfairness here. Some conservatives are fond of saying that Democrats want to tax the wealthy unfairly, but what I would like to see is the wealthy taxed equally. "Mr. Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent." Here is the entire article. It's a great read. Trust me.

Tom Bawden in New York

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (�26 billion), said: �The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you�re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.�

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.

They echo those made this month by Nicholas Ferguson, one of the leading figures in Britain�s private equity industry, when he criticised tax rates that left its multimillionaire venture capitalists �paying less tax than a cleaning lady�.

Last week senior members of the US Senate proposed to increase the rate of tax that private equity and hedge fund staff pay on their share of the profits, known as carried interest, from the 15 per cent capital gains rate to about 35 per cent.

Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, acknowledged in an interview yesterday that there were justified concerns about the huge profits generated by private equity firms and that he worried that income inequality was �poisoning democracy�. He also said that he would be voting for the Democrat candidate at the next election. Mr Blankfein is the highest-paid executive on Wall Street, earning $54 million last year.

Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world�s most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: �I�m making $80 million a year � God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.�

Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.

He said: �You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?�

Where did you get your debating skills? On the south side of Chicago in some street gang? Because if you did, it shows.

In a REAL debate, there is no room or tolerance for personal attacks. Yet, that's all you people know how to do. You can't stay on the issue. You MUST attack the poster personally, claiming to know not only what they think and feel but also claiming to know what every liberal ever thought or did, what they're thinking and doing right now and what they will be thinking and doing for the next 1,000 years. In fact, you seem to know everything about anything that ever existed on the planet, exists now or will exist into infinity.

As I (and others) have said repeatedly and you just can't seem to grasp, if you constantly treat people badly, they're not going to want to associate with you. Lurker was very gracious in her posts to all of you on your board, but even she, in the end, couldn't tolerate your continued, nonstop, personal attacks any more (as she indicated in her responses to the attackers). If you ever stop knowing it all and become interested in the proper way of debating someone, you could learn a lot from Lurker. You see, having *thick skin* is only important if you're a thug in a gang somewhere. It's irrelevant when it comes to treating humans like humans, and in that area, you have a lot to learn.

As for me, I like to learn from intelligent, friendly people with different political views, so I visit boards where those kinds of people are found. Not all conservatives are angry, rude, come out swinging and need to personally attack 1,000% of the time. Some of them are actually quite nice and informative, and they can be found on other forums. Too bad they can't be found on MTStars.

...overseer of the TARP Program. Though it's pretty funny, it's also very informative and explained in a way that most people can "get," and I highly recommend it to those who are interested.

It's a two-part video, and I believe it's worth watching, though, unfortunately, some people will probably criticize it without even bothering to watch it in its entirety).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/elizabeth-warren-makes-jo_n_187635.html

...overseer of the TARP Program. Though it's pretty funny, it's also very informative and explained in a way that most people can "get" (in a Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart interview kind of way), and I highly recommend it to those who are interested.

It's a two-part video, and I believe it's worth watching, though, unfortunately, some people will probably criticize it without even bothering to watch it in its entirety).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/elizabeth-warren-makes-jo_n_187635.html

LIke the Brits said the day after 2004 election, how can 55 and so million be so STUPID!!!

As far as the way he debates, I like to think that he kind of stammers and stutters sometimes to buy himself time to really think about what he is going to say, as obviously saying one wrong thing can damage an entire campaign. I personally wish he would spit things out a bit faster, but in the end I can always see what he is trying to get at. Of course, he is my favorite candidate and I know where he stands on most issues anyway (I go to his website a lot), so that probably makes me more accepting of his style, I guess.

I hope he does not slow down, and I have a very good feeling that he won't. I think he is bringing out record numbers of young people out to vote, and I think that has been and will continue to be a huge part of his success. He does inspire people in general, and he obviously inspires them to vote! I've seen so many people comment on his MySpace page that they have never voted before but went and registered just so they could vote for him.

Obama has integrity, and I think many of us get the sense that he cannot be bought and will not work for big business but rather for the American people, and that is one of the things I like most about him. I guess I trust that he doesn't want the job for the paycheck but that he really wants to improve this country and the world in general. I'm sooooo sick of politicians voting according to what drug company is paying them the most money, or oil company, insurance company, etc. It is beyond outrageous at this point!

what I call the "right to breathe" tax. Just because we are living, we are taxed for it. It's only $252 a year but only 2 years ago, it was only $10 a year.

The stimulus also isn't helping our area. The little bit of money that came to this county is going for the same things (landscaping, etc.) that Hannity listed. Yet, our school district needs a new roof and more classrooms, so they are raising our taxes another 3.1 mils. We already are the highest taxed district in the county. A $100,000 home pays $1500 in property taxes...at least that was last year. The property taxes go up every year.

...of those folks you mention. Who did you think pays for all the uninsured health care in this country? Santa Claus? Folks without insurance often wait until the last minute and then utilize ER services which in the end cost more than if they'd been followed in a clinic.

It also sounds like you believe that kids of welfare abusers should be punished because their parents can't/don't/won't provide for them. I don't agree. All children deserve basic care regardless of who their parents are. We are a wealthy country, after all.

Personally, I'd be happy to pitch in on my taxes to help provide a health care program for the uninsured. Better that than funding a war in Iraq.

Dems oppose UNJUST war, like going into Iraq or Israel's constant terror against Palestine. There's a huge difference. We are in the middle of 2 wars -- that Bush started. Did you really think that we would be able to clean his mess up with just a wave of a hand?

Pakistan has a government that has no control of its country, which means that militants are currently in charge of the attacks on the supply line that goes into Afganistan. Those are the targets. My guess is that the real Pakistan gov probably gave the coordinates to the US for these and many previous hits. However, they can't really claim that because their people would be all over them because of the anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. This is why you haven't heard a lot of arguement from the UN about these hits. This was the same thing that was going on when Bush was in office.

Obama has consistently said that he wants diplomacy first, but he has also said that he will not hesitate to use force when necessary. In this particular instance, the US is currently working out a deal with Russia for a different route for supplies to Afganistan, but in the meantime it is necessary to protect the existing route through Pakistan. Did you really think that Obama was just going to leave our people in Afganistan with no supply line? And if he had, what would you have said about that?

to what is said by the president as opposed to the Fixed Noise version. What Obama actually said:

".....we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

He is absolutely correct. The US is not a theocracy and is therefore not bound by or based on any relgion.

Warren Buffett is paying less tax, personally and corporately, than anytime time in his life.

Miers' Answer Raises Questions

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary