Stop coddling the super-rich, Warren Buffett says

[mawilson 2,133]

He didn't even bother to name his own foundation and simply chose to donate his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Note that he didn't choose to donate his wealth to the US government. Perhaps he thought that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation could manage it better?

[scandal 951]

Note that he didn't choose to donate his wealth to the US government. Perhaps he thought that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation could manage it better?

No. He's aware that even his own impressive wealth is a small rounding error in the US annual budget. If a one-time contribution by Buffett alone would resolve our debt issues, I suspect he would consider doing so. What he realizes is that we have a long term structural imbalance in our revenues and spending. No one man at one time will fix that. But all of us as a society can make a shared sacrifice to overcome it. America is a rich and blessed nation. We're just cursed with self-serving politicians.

He - quite understandably - wants to use his wealth to fund ongoing efforts for years and generations to come. You're familiar, for example, with the Carnegie or Rockefeller foundations, still supporting the arts, education, public discourse and more a century after their founding? The Gates foundation will be joining those fine institutions. Nothing wrong with that.

It's good that a man to whom much has been given wishes to return that back to the society from which he earned it. And you certainly would agree that it's his CHOICE what to do with his AFTER-TAX money. His call for raising his taxes will of course mean that more will go to the Treasury and proportionately less to his charitable giving. He's fine with that. Pity you are not.

In conclusion, I note that you did not address at all the nasty remarks you made about Warren Buffett. You owe the man an apology, in my view.

[mawilson 2,133]

In conclusion, I note that you did not address at all the nasty remarks you made about Warren Buffett. You owe the man an apology, in my view.

I did not, because I stand by my original statement. I'm no fan of Warren Buffett.

I respect the fact that you are, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[scandal 951]

Besides, he's absolutely flat-out right about our tax and budgetary policy in this country.

Actually, on further reflection, I'd like to amend this comment.

He's not absolutely flat-out right. He's certainly in the right direction and very nearly right.

But he's calling only for tax hikes on those earning 1Million or more, and another tax bracket kicking in at 10Million.

That's right, but not enough to be flat-out right. Better would be taxes that kick in at even much lower rates: Obama's suggestion of 250K is a starting place but I'm fine with going lower than that. I earn a 6 figure income below 250K, and I'll join Buffett in the line that says tax me too. I would also be open to the idea of kicking in the federal brackets at zero, to broaden the base and ensure that everyone has skin in the game. The revenue collected at the very lowest end would be a token sum, but there is a moral case to make for it. Clearly it's nonsensical to do that broad-based hiking now in the midst of a struggling economy. So in a 10 year plan these broad increases should kick in at about 2 years out, or whenever GDP and unemployment hit some trigger levels: say 3% GDP and < 7% unemployment, but not further out than 3 years. The tax on the super-rich (Buffett's > 1M) can start immediately, as he calls for it.

That would be flat-out right.

[mawilson 2,133]

He's calling for tax hikes on capital gains and dividends, no?

[scandal 951]

He's calling for tax hikes on capital gains and dividends, no?

Yes. He's calling for immediately raising rates on all taxable income at new brackets of $1M and $10M.

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Published: August 14, 2011

...

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

[mawilson 2,133]

Would you pay more for the same product if there were no new features or improvements?

Why is it ok to pay more taxes if you don't get any added value?

[scandal 951]

Would you pay more for the same product if there were no new features or improvements?

Why is it ok to pay more taxes if you don't get any added value?

You pay for more for the same (or in fact -often less) all the time. It's called inflation, for one thing. Gas last year was $3.20, now it's pushing $4. More money, same gas. Or -- you paid $1 for a Quarter Pounder in 1985. Now you pay $4 and it's not even a quarter pound of beef anymore. They raised the price and shrank the product. Same for your Hershey Bar, your Tide detergent, etc.

Besides, our problem is that we've seriously UNDERFUNDED the public values we receive. The American public has demanded entitlements and services that are simply more generous than what we've been willing to fund. It's time to redress that. By paying more in tax AND ALSO cutting back on those overgenerous benefits, we achieve the parity we should have had all along. We begin paying for the added values we've been getting for years.

Ready for next question. Keep 'em coming. You're lobbing softballs dude.

[mawilson 2,133]

The American public has demanded entitlements and services that are simply more generous than what we've they've been willing to fund.

They don't seem to have a problem when someone else is funding their programs.

Just look at some of the earlier comments in this thread. The perception out there is that the rich are not paying their fair share and that the middle class bears the brunt of the tax burden, when in fact neither is true.

The fact is, the middle class is far from being overtaxed. By international standards, Americans pay very low taxes.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Especially when you consider military assets may have been used in some degree or another for this purpose.

Were fighting three wars for big oil atm. That's how much pull they have. They use our military to fight their wars. Companies like Haliburton have received billions of US tax dollars.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

They don't seem to have a problem when someone else is funding their programs.

Just look at some of the earlier comments in this thread. The perception out there is that the rich are not paying their fair share and that the middle class bears the brunt of the tax burden, when in fact neither is true.

The fact is, the middle class is far from being overtaxed. By international standards, Americans pay very low taxes.

Nonsense, should we trot out Frank McCourt again? Those countries that have universal healthcare pay more in taxes but get a hell of a lot more serivices. I note that you use the term middle class interchangably with Americans, could it be that the wealthy have everything offshore and away from the prying eyes of the IRS.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Were fighting three wars for big oil atm. That's how much pull they have. They use our military to fight their wars. Companies like Haliburton have received billions of US tax dollars.

They use our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers as fodder. Who cares if they die, they were expendable, the same mentality permeates the corporate and business world, if someone loses their job and starves, who cares, we made a profit by laying off a few thousand workers.

[scandal 951]

They don't seem to have a problem when someone else is funding their programs.

Just look at some of the earlier comments in this thread. The perception out there is that the rich are not paying their fair share and that the middle class bears the brunt of the tax burden, when in fact neither is true.

The fact is, the middle class is far from being overtaxed. By international standards, Americans pay very low taxes.

Who is "they"? "They" is us. We are a democracy. We have the policies and programs our elected representatives create. Moreover, if you look at opinion polls, we Americans (not they Americans) by massive percentages want to leave entitlement programs intact. We claim we want to cut spending but we can't agree on which programs we want cut. Frankly, we don't really want to cut anything -though we'll have to. We really do want the programs we've got. And, yes, it's WE not THEY. Despite your attempts at FIXXORING.

As to taxes, I agree with you that Americans pay relatively low tax rates. Hence my claim that we should be raising taxes on everyone, not just the rich. But it is true that the rich have been sliding down and paying a proportionately smaller share. Which consequently means that the non-rich (poor and middle class) are paying a proportionately HIGHER share. Let me quote Bufffett's own op-ed piece on that:

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Published: August 14, 2011

...

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

...

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack.

...

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

[mawilson 2,133]

Nonsense, should we trot out Frank McCourt again?

Frank McCourt is paying very low taxes by international standards.

You are paying very low taxes by international standards.

I am paying very low taxes by international standards.

Clear?

[mawilson 2,133]

Who is "they"? "They" is us. We are a democracy. We have the policies and programs our elected representatives create. Moreover, if you look at opinion polls, we Americans (not they Americans) by massive percentages want to leave entitlement programs intact. We claim we want to cut spending but we can't agree on which programs we want cut. Frankly, we don't really want to cut anything -though we'll have to. We really do want the programs we've got. And, yes, it's WE not THEY. Despite your attempts at FIXXORING.

"They" are those Americans who demand entitlements and government programs.

I don't include myself in that category, as I've never claimed any benefits or asked for help from the government, nor do I intend to do so. The nanny state, cradle-to-grave entitlement society is not what America is about.

I recognize the value of certain government services - it's easy to see how roads, schools, police can make the country better for everyone - but those are a tiny fraction of the overall budget.