Right, he is willing to do it so long as everyone else has to as well. How very 3rd grade of him. Again, he would have my support if he put his money where his mouth is. Have him start paying the taxes he wants his countrymen to pay, before FORCING them to do so, and I promise you, he would get a LOT more support for his cause, because he would prove himself to be genuine.Your premise -- that Buffett is not willing to do it -- is false. Buffett is lobbying for a change that would apply to him. In other words, he is willing to do it so long as it's a systemic change.
When person X is the person trying to MANDATE that collective action, I absolutely expect them to participate, and when it's something like this, I absolutely expect them to LEAD THE WAY.You are making the weak argument that conservatives always make in these cases: that there should be no collective action, when collective action is required, because person X hasn't volunteered by himself.
When someone is trying to force a select few members of the town to start laying down 100,000 sandbags, without actually offering to jump in first, what does it look like? Have we totally forgotten what good leadership is, in this country? Sometimes, to get people to follow you, you have to jump into the fray.If someone is trying to convince the town that 100,000 sandbags need to be laid down to hold back the river, it's senseless to criticize that man because he hasn't already laid down 20 or 30 sandbags himself.
Buffet is not. Buffet is only willing to jump in, so long as everyone else has a guy with a gun to their backs, pushing them in as well. How very noble of the man.
So, for the record, you have not yet answered my question.
If someone doesn't want to do it by choice, why then, would they argue to do it by force? It's a simple question. It has a simple answer. I just think none of you want to hear it.