Why is it (human nature)?

[seamusTX]

...and somebody needs to inform him that there are no boogers in heaven.

Source please!

Maybe 1 Corinthians 15:52:

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

However, boogerheads ultimately can repent and be forgiven.

- Jim

[WildBill]

The phrase is used to tear down guys like Steve Jobs who have brought outstanding products to the market that have benefited millions and deserve everything that they earn ... because they do earn it, and don't steal it or illegally stack the deck in their favor to acquire it. Those who use the phrase against true entrepreneurs are doing it to demean our entire free enterprise system.

They are the type who will say, "Why does he need more money? Doesn't he already have enough?" They are the same people who will offer to take some of his "extra money" or tell him that he should donate it to charity.

[The Annoyed Man]

...and somebody needs to inform him that there are no boogers in heaven.

Source please!

It's from the Book of Snot, 1:1.

Yeah, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of mononucleosis, I shall fear no snot. Your antibiotic and Your Robitussin DM they comfort me.

Apropos Capitalism (being in it for the money) versus Socialism (being in it by coercion), I came up with this one: "A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NASB)

[chasfm11]

The phrase is used to tear down guys like Steve Jobs who have brought outstanding products to the market that have benefited millions and deserve everything that they earn ... because they do earn it, and don't steal it or illegally stack the deck in their favor to acquire it. Those who use the phrase against true entrepreneurs are doing it to demean our entire free enterprise system.

They are the type who will say, "Why does he need more money? Doesn't he already have enough?" They are the same people who will offer to take some of his "extra money" or tell him that he should donate it to charity.

There are many of our most successful businessmen like Warren Buffet who agree with that line of thinking and have voluntarily donated huge sums of money to charity. As long as those donations are voluntary, just like the rest of us who give to charities of our choice, they are a benefit to society. When the "donations" become coerced, demanded or generated through laws against the rich, the line has been crossed and those who do it really need to wear a mask like their brothers who take things that don't belong to them.

[The Annoyed Man]

The phrase is used to tear down guys like Steve Jobs who have brought outstanding products to the market that have benefited millions and deserve everything that they earn ... because they do earn it, and don't steal it or illegally stack the deck in their favor to acquire it. Those who use the phrase against true entrepreneurs are doing it to demean our entire free enterprise system.

They are the type who will say, "Why does he need more money? Doesn't he already have enough?" They are the same people who will offer to take some of his "extra money" or tell him that he should donate it to charity.

There are many of our most successful businessmen like Warren Buffet who agree with that line of thinking and have voluntarily donated huge sums of money to charity. As long as those donations are voluntary, just like the rest of us who give to charities of our choice, they are a benefit to society. When the "donations" become coerced, demanded or generated through laws against the rich, the line has been crossed and those who do it really need to wear a mask like their brothers who take things that don't belong to them.

Warren Buffet doesn't think the rich pay enough in income taxes.

[WildBill]

Warren Buffet doesn't think the rich pay enough in income taxes.

That's because they're a tax deduction.

[Ameer]

Warren Buffet doesn't think the rich pay enough in income taxes.

He should stop itemizing and take the standard deduction.

[seamusTX]

Apropos Capitalism (being in it for the money) versus Socialism (being in it by coercion), I came up with this one: "A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NASB)

Your first point is a reminder that some of the worst people in history were not in it for the money. Serial killers and sadists generally don't profit from their evil deeds, and the worst rulers like Stalin and the guy with the little moustache did not enrich themselves.

It's quite remarkable that the author of Ecclesiastes (traditionally Solomon) foresaw which sides of the aisle the parties in the 17th-century French congresses would sit on.

- Jim

[chasfm11]

The phrase is used to tear down guys like Steve Jobs who have brought outstanding products to the market that have benefited millions and deserve everything that they earn ... because they do earn it, and don't steal it or illegally stack the deck in their favor to acquire it. Those who use the phrase against true entrepreneurs are doing it to demean our entire free enterprise system.

They are the type who will say, "Why does he need more money? Doesn't he already have enough?" They are the same people who will offer to take some of his "extra money" or tell him that he should donate it to charity.

There are many of our most successful businessmen like Warren Buffet who agree with that line of thinking and have voluntarily donated huge sums of money to charity. As long as those donations are voluntary, just like the rest of us who give to charities of our choice, they are a benefit to society. When the "donations" become coerced, demanded or generated through laws against the rich, the line has been crossed and those who do it really need to wear a mask like their brothers who take things that don't belong to them.

Warren Buffet doesn't think the rich pay enough in income taxes.

With all due respect to Mr. Buffet's tremendous success:
1. We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem
2. Governments (today) at all levels have sufficient revenue for all of the things that they need to do
3. Governments will never have enough money for all of the graft and corruption that they want to do and certainly not for all the things that they try to do beyond the scope of their powers.

If Larry Ellison makes enough money and wants to spend it racing America's Cup yachts, he should be able to do that without having taxes take $.90 on every $1.00 of his earnings as many seek. I don't begrude him his success or the success of Richard Branson or any of the others like them.

Let's look at our education system. We all pay a large amount of taxes towards the education of the children in our society. Does anyone believe that taxing the rich more and doubling our current school spending would fix what is wrong with our schools? Would triple the expenditure solve the problem?

I had the opportunity of spending a reasonable amount of time in Denmark and made a very dear friend there. Denmark is a great example of what happens when you overtax the rich and punish them for their success. There are very few rich because their tax rates are as high as 95%. There isn't a lot of reason to say to anyone there "he is in in it for the money." It isn't possible.

[Ameer]

With all due respect to Mr. Buffet's tremendous success:
1. We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem
2. Governments (today) at all levels have sufficient revenue for all of the things that they need to do
3. Governments will never have enough money for all of the graft and corruption that they want to do and certainly not for all the things that they try to do beyond the scope of their powers.

They could cut Federal spending in half if they obeyed the US Constitution.

[The Annoyed Man]

With all due respect to Mr. Buffet's tremendous success:
1. We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem...

I am in complete agreement with you. I just thought it was ironic that here we are defending his right to be richer than Croesus, and he wants to make sure that we'll be punitively taxed if we ever get to his level.

[WildBill]

With all due respect to Mr. Buffet's tremendous success:
1. We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem...

I am in complete agreement with you. I just thought it was ironic that here we are defending his right to be richer than Croesus, and he wants to make sure that we'll be punitively taxed if we ever get to his level.

I don't thnk that the tax laws prevent Mr. Buffet from paying more taxes than he is required to by law.

[seamusTX]

Tax rates are a political decision like any other political decision.

This country had tremendous economic growth when the marginal federal income tax rate was as high as 90% (in the 1950s). It has anemic growth now with much lower tax rates.

I think Mr. Buffet's criticism is that the current tax rate for long-term capital gains and dividends is less than the marginal tax rate for middle-class wage earners (like his secretary that he usually mentions in this context).

The point I wanted to make in starting this thread is that earning money or making a profit per se is necessary and not evil.

Claiming that someone is "in it for the money" or "only in it for the money" is a weak argument and essentially an ad hominem attack.

- Jim

[WildBill]

The point I wanted to make in starting this thread is that earning money or making a profit per se is necessary and not evil. Claiming that someone is "in it for the money" or "only in it for the money" is a weak argument and essentially an ad hominem attack. - Jim

This has been a good thread.

[LikesShinyThings]

Warren Buffet doesn't think the rich pay enough in income taxes.

That's because they're a tax deduction.

As I understand it, Warren Buffet has precious little EARNED income. Most all of his income is unearned (dividends, interest, etc), so therefore taxed at (IMHO an appropriate) lower rate than earned income. It's easy to think you don't pay enough in income tax if you don't have taxed income.

I agree with what WildBill pointed out - Warren is perfectly free to send an additional tax payment/donation to the feds any time he likes.

As for the OP "he's <only> in it for the money" - well, I've never used that phrase, that I can recall. Mostly because I have very little occasion to discuss criminal/nefarious "money gaining", and those who are just getting paid lots of money (tv/movie stars, pro athletes) - hey, they may not be working "that hard" and may be getting crazy amounts of money, but nobody is forcing the payers to pay that much, and those people are providing something perceived to be of that value.