What is hyperbolic about stating a fact?
If Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates and Matt Damon et al want to give more of their money to the US Treasury, they can, or they can give it directly to the programs they would like it to fund like Head Start and Planned Parenthood.
In any case, and I repeat, raising taxes on the mega-rich is not going to get it done, and couples who make $250k per year are not "rich" by anything even remotely approaching Warren Buffet's or even Matt Damon's level of "rich."
My wife and I have paid our fair share of taxes for about 39 years now, and we donate to charity at a rate that is higher than the average couple. I'm not bragging about this because I often feel like we should give more, but that's our decision, not Warren Buffets, and not the Government's.
If Warren Buffet believes he has it too good, there is a very simple way for him to balance the scales. By all accounts he is relatively generous as far as charitable donations. I emphasize relatively because even when he pledged to donate the majority of his enormous fortune he held back enough to keep him and his children living grand lifestyles: including multiple residences and private aircraft.
I don't for one second begrudge Buffet the extent of wealth he intends to preserve for himself and his family, and it's good to see that he is sane enough to not want to hold on to an amount he cannot possible spend, but he should shut the hell up about what other people should do...even if he intends to give up all of his fortune (which he most assuredly does not).
Anyone who insists on lumping "hundred thousandaires" with the mega-rich to assert some concept of equity is either just ignorant or cynically rationalizing grabbing someone else's money to pay for what they want.
What astounds me is that folks like you believe that the government actually needs more in taxes to pay for it's reasonable obligations. You buy into the Democrats' charade about needing more and more money to take care of the needy, when the reality is that they really need more and more money to buy votes...and not just from the permanent underclass they have been trying to establish since LBJ was president.
If you feel the needy need more, give it to them out of your own purse, and stop judging the generosity of others.
If you don't want tax dollars going to corporations, foreign countries, and what you believe is unnecessary defense expenditures by all means make your position known and vote for candidates who will attempt to advance that position.
If I think the government is not spending enough in these areas, than you have every right and reason to tell me to reach into my own pocket.
You and others seem to think the Relatively Rich, the Rich and the Mega-Rich gained their wealth through criminal means. Undoubtedly a few have but certainly nowhere near the majority.
What you also seem unable to grasp is that if the government punishes success by increasing taxes on the successful you will the condition we have today where billions of dollars in captital is sitting on the sidelines.
Do you think that if the government crosses into the sideline and seizes this wealth that it will be able to convert it into jobs and more healthy economy? It spent nearly a trillion dollars on a crazy stimulus that has had no positive impact on the economy, and even if you buy into Keynesian economics, you can't buy into all of the politically pork the Democrats funded with Stimulus money that came from our pockets.
The reality is that we can't rely on governmental competency that is not hamstrung by the imperative of a few hundred politicians to get themselves re-elected and feather their own nests. This includes Republicans as well as Democrats, and there are , of course, some exceptions in both parties.
The only reason I find Republicans more acceptable than Democrats is that they are marginally more inclined to rein government in. The Bush Administration proved that this is not always the case, but at least Republicans spend our money like drunken accountants, while Democrats spend it like drunken sailors.
If you are a supporter of the Democrat party, what do you feel about the excess perks Nancy Pelosi insisted upon? A-OK, because while she personally insisted on being treated like royalty, she "cares about the poor?"
If Obama is such a champion of the under-privledged, why does he insist on taking advantage of the numerous costly perks of his office? Because as a tireless fighter for the poor he deserves a little luxury?
After all, even a saint like Mother Teresa insisted on flying First Class, and you should have seen her luxurious digs in Calcutta.
Liberals tend to consider hypocrisy as the greatest of sins when they can pin it on Conservatives, but they have an enormous blind spot when it comes to the life styles of their heroes, which in any other case they would consider excessive.
I'm interested in learning why you feel tax reform will not suffice in terms of increasing revenues. Are you such a slave to the "increased taxes!" mantra of Democrats? Is it part of your personal priorities to obtain increased political power for Democrat politicians?
You are being duped but you are desperate to be identified with the Good Guys and you have bought into the nonsense that Democrats are the Good Guys.