Billionaire Buffett to give away his wealth

2

Comments

  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Without the estate tax, many would leave more leave more to charity.

    Don't masturbate on A Moving Train.

    Repeal of the estate tax would substantially reduce charitable giving.

    http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5650&sequence=0
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    SundaySilence wrote:
    Don't masturbate on A Moving Train.

    Repeal of the estate tax would substantially reduce charitable giving.

    http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5650&sequence=0

    I didn't disagree with your statement. I simply pointed out a different way to look at it, though looking at it again I realize it was good drunken English. What I meant to say is this:

    "Without the estate tax, many would leave more to charity."
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I didn't disagree with your statement. I simply pointed out a different way to look at it.

    Your statement is deceptive about the outcome. And I don't follow the cause/effect reasoning behind it.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I didn't disagree with your statement. I simply pointed out a different way to look at it, though looking at it again I realize it was good drunken English. What I meant to say is this:

    "Without the estate tax, many would leave more to charity."


    and you know this b/c.....?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    SundaySilence wrote:
    Your statement is deceptive about the outcome.

    How? It wasn't intended to be.
    And I don't follow the cause/effect reasoning behind it.

    The less some people have to give to the estate tax, the more is available for them to give to charity. I'm talking about individual options here.

    Certainly without charity as a tax avoidance extortion mechanism, less overall money would be given to charity. But that tells you a lot about your estate tax.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    El_Kabong wrote:
    and you know this b/c.....?

    I know this because charitable giving is an option that is cut into by the required estate tax. Many people leave part of their estate to charity while also having to pay the estate tax. Removing the estate tax provides a larger cut to all the remaining parties, often including the charity.
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How? It wasn't intended to be.

    Because your post implies the opposite of the actual overall effect of estate tax repeal.

    http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=060531estategivi
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    SundaySilence wrote:
    Because your post implies the opposite of the actual overall effect of estate tax repeal.

    http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=060531estategivi

    It doesn't imply that at all. It implies that if the estate tax was repealled charitable givers would be able to give more to charity. I certainly don't deny that a repeal of the estate tax would lower overall giving. I simply reject extortion as a valuable means to charity.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I know this because charitable giving is an option that is cut into by the required estate tax. Many people leave part of their estate to charity while also having to pay the estate tax. Removing the estate tax provides a larger cut to all the remaining parties, often including the charity.


    hmm, sounds like an assumption to me ;)
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    farfromglorified wrote:
    "Without the estate tax, many would leave more to charity."

    One would infer from this statement that the without the estate tax more would be left to charity and the opposite is true.

    http://www.cbpp.org/8-3-04tax.htm
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    El_Kabong wrote:
    hmm, sounds like an assumption to me ;)

    So you believe then that all estate tax payments are willing and that in their absence no one would give that money to charity?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    SundaySilence wrote:
    One would infer from this statement that the without the estate tax more would be left to charity and the opposite is true.

    http://www.cbpp.org/8-3-04tax.htm

    Such an inferrence would be incorrect and without basis.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    farfromglorified wrote:
    So you believe then that all estate tax payments are willing and that in their absence no one would give that money to charity?


    where did i say 'no one'?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Such an inferrence would be incorrect and without basis.

    It would be a common inferrence nevertheless.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    "Without the estate tax, many would leave more to charity."

    Many would assume your use of the word "many" in your statement to indicate significance, but study of the effect of estate tax repeal on charitable donations (which are tax exempt) demonstrates the effect you herald to be theoretical and proportionately minimal to the opposite effect.
  • duffy
    duffy Posts: 74
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    I can't stand his song "Margaritaville".



    damn jimmy's probably wealthier than warren now.


    i saw warren's granddaughter on some show, cleaning houses. seems he's a bit stingy with his family. lol well, so be it. his perogative.
  • brain of c
    brain of c Posts: 5,213
    he's giving it all to jimmy buffett.
    d'oh!!!!!!

    http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    El_Kabong wrote:
    where did i say 'no one'?

    You said I'm assuming that, without the estate tax, some people would individually give more to charity. I'm not assuming, however. I personally know some that would do so and it stands to reason that many more would as well.
  • SPEEDY MCCREADY
    SPEEDY MCCREADY Posts: 26,946
    brain of c wrote:
    he's giving it all to jimmy buffett.
    thats alot of margaritas and cheeseburgers.....
    Take me piece by piece.....
    Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    SundaySilence wrote:
    It would be a common inferrence nevertheless.

    Many would assume your use of the word "many" in your statement to indicate significance, but study of the effect of estate tax repeal on charitable donations (which are tax exempt) demonstrates the effect you herald to be theoretical and proportionately minimal to the opposite effect.

    Do you understand the difference between the words "all", "most", and "many"? I'm betting that most people here do.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You said I'm assuming that, without the estate tax, some people would individually give more to charity. I'm not assuming, however. I personally know some that would do so and it stands to reason that many more would as well.


    it also stands to reason that 'many' does not equal 'no one'
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way

Categories