Most Millionaires Support Warren Buffetts Tax on the Rich

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Warren Buffett isn’t the only rich guy who wants to higher taxes on the rich.

A new survey from Spectrem Group found that 68% of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more) support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income. Fully 61% of those with net worths of $5 million or more support the tax on million-plus earners.

Buffett, as you might recall, has proposed raising taxes on million-plus earners, saying the ultra-rich pay lower rates than everyday workers.

Rich people’s opinions of Buffett remain fairly positive in the wake of his tax-me-more crusade. More than a third of millionaires and ultra-high-net-worths said they have a more positive opinion of Buffett after his tax proposal. Only 19% of millionaires and 22% of the $5 million -plus group said they had a more negative opinion of him after the proposal.

More than 40% of both groups said their opinion hadn’t changed.

In other words, Buffett’s proposal had more supporters than detractors among the rich — though that support declines slightly as you move up the wealth ladder.

Explains George Walper of Spectrem: “What this tells us is that there are a number of wealthy folks who said: ‘Gee, we need to increase taxes to stimulate the economy. No one likes to be taxed more, but the reality is maybe it has to be done.’ ”

Walper added that he was also surprised at the positive reactions to Buffett’s political agenda. “I thought that among this group there would be a feeling of ‘why doesn’t he keep his nose out of it?’”

As part of its survey, Spectrem Group also collected comments from the respondents. Here are a few highlights, from both the pro-Buffett and anti-Buffett camps:

PRO-BUFFETTS

“When you have someone who made four and a half billion pay fifteen percent, and because it’s a hedge fund, I have a problem with that.”

“Quite frankly if Warren Buffett gets taxed an extra fifty thousand dollars or your typical investor of two hundred and fifty [thousand] or larger has to pay an extra thousand dollars in tax; It’s not gonna change his lifestyle. Whatever he or she was gonna buy, he or she is gonna buy.”

““I think theoretically it would be good for this country and put some more money in the coffers, personally it wouldn’t be good for my family so I’m kind of at conflict between self interest and what might be good for the country.”

ANTI-BUFFETTS

““I think some of that spirit of America is lost when you start penalizing so to speak, the folks who have more.”

“I think there should be a voluntary check box on the tax form that says, if you would like to send in more please do.”

““For myself, if there were an increase in taxes, I’m probably gonna button up some spending.”

The survey and comments prove that the rich are not the monolithic, entirely self-serving group that is often portrayed in the media. They are just as divided as the rest of the country. And many are willing to pay more taxes.

Has your opinion of Buffett gotten better or worse after his tax idea?

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/?mod=e2tw

[luckytxn 2,264]

The rich pay most of the taxes now so I suggest that if they are so gung ho to just write a check now and send it in. That way we can get to what the Socialists really want and that is to tax the middle class heavily. Then they can have the money they want to subsidize heavily the Green industries. The green industries funnel a lot of campaign contributions to the Socialists. The green industries also will have ex politicians on the boards as payback and even hire the friends and family members to rake it in. They also can then spend a lot of money to the poor to buy their votes. They also have a lot of campaign donors that need to feed at the trough. Of course they have more than anyone a lot of jobs to dole out to ensure faithfulness.

[Misha & Ira 113]

I dispute the findings of the so called 'spectrem group'.

[dalegg 143]

What is Buffets proposal anyway? He says they should raise the rates on millionaires immediately and then on 10 millionaires again. What rates is he suggesting they put on that amount?

[james&olya 1,121]

It would be in the self-interest of the great majority of the wealthy to support the higher taxes necessary to prevent the severe cuts in government spending and services that will occur otherwise. The damage to the economy if that happens will drag down everybody's income. Just remember the experience of the 90's when Bill Clinton's tax hikes were met with predictions of doom. EVERYBODY did better, even after taxes!

[웃 910]

It would be in the self-interest of the great majority of the wealthy to support the higher taxes necessary to prevent the severe cuts in government spending and services that will occur otherwise. The damage to the economy if that happens will drag down everybody's income. Just remember the experience of the 90's when Bill Clinton's tax hikes were met with predictions of doom. EVERYBODY did better, even after taxes!

Funny you mention the Deficit Reduction Plan, which worked.

Bush and the Repubs "felt" the Surplus Reduction Plan would work, and jobs would be tricklin' and yee-hawin' on down.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[dalegg 143]

It would be in the self-interest of the great majority of the wealthy to support the higher taxes necessary to prevent the severe cuts in government spending and services that will occur otherwise. The damage to the economy if that happens will drag down everybody's income. Just remember the experience of the 90's when Bill Clinton's tax hikes were met with predictions of doom. EVERYBODY did better, even after taxes!

But just raising taxes on the wealthy isn't going to do it. Just removing the Bush/Obama tax cuts on the top 1% will only return somewhere between 60 to 100 billion dollars in tax revenue per year. We have a 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit!

Even if you repealed the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% and DOUBLED the highest tax bracket to 80%, and taxed Capitol Gains along with that rate, you would only bring in an additional 400 to 450 billion- and that assumes that the loss of so much money doesn't impact the overall economy at all.

Unfortunately we cannot rely on millionaires and billionaires alone. Returning to the Clinton era taxes is a good start- but we have to do it for everyone.

[웃 910]

But just raising taxes on the wealthy isn't going to do it. Just removing the Bush/Obama tax cuts on the top 1% will only return somewhere between 60 to 100 billion dollars in tax revenue per year. We have a 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit!

Even if you repealed the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% and DOUBLED the highest tax bracket to 80%, and taxed Capitol Gains along with that rate, you would only bring in an additional 400 to 450 billion- and that assumes that the loss of so much money doesn't impact the overall economy at all.

Unfortunately we cannot rely on millionaires and billionaires alone. Returning to the Clinton era taxes is a good start- but we have to do it for everyone.

We have a fiscal crisis. Why is this data unknown to Congress?

It's like being in debt up to your eyeballs and intentionally cutting your hours from overtime 60 hours a week down to part time, 15 to 20 hours a week. And thinking that it is a solution. Just doesn't make sense.

[dalegg 143]

We have a fiscal crisis. Why is this data unknown to Congress?

It's like being in debt up to your eyeballs and intentionally cutting your hours from overtime 60 hours a week down to part time, 15 to 20 hours a week. And thinking that it is a solution. Just doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I really don't know what the issue is. Obama had the opportunity to just let the Bush Era taxes go away and he balked at it. Now its all politics.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We have a fiscal crisis. Why is this data unknown to Congress?

It's like being in debt up to your eyeballs and intentionally cutting your hours from overtime 60 hours a week down to part time, 15 to 20 hours a week. And thinking that it is a solution. Just doesn't make sense.

Not just cutting your hours but also ditching your ride to work because it costs too much. And discontinue taking care of your health because it's too expensive to do it. Then you quit acquiring new knowledge to remain competitive in your job because you just can't afford them classes or those books. Yeah, that's how you get out of that hole.

[slim 1,514]

Who is Buffet?

Last time I checked, he's not a policy maker.

Who is Obama?

Last time I checked, he's not a policy maker either.

The problem is both of these men think they can make policy. Neither can. Americans are stupid for even acknowledging their presence.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Who is Buffet? = UHNW Individual

Last time I checked, he's not a policy maker.

Who is Obama? = POTUS

Last time I checked, he's not a policy maker either.

The problem is both of these men think they can make policy.

They both do? And Obama can't? Read up on the legislative role of the President of the United States. He's part of the process.

[Nina~ 431]

Who is Buffet?

Last time I checked, he's not a policy maker.

Who is Obama?

Last time I checked, he's not a policy maker either.

The problem is both of these men think they can make policy. Neither can. Americans are stupid for even acknowledging their presence.

You are not a policymaker either, so what? But people like Buffet, Obama and maybe even you can influence policy. It would be silly to discount them just because they are not "policymakers".

ETA: Mr Big Dog is right. POTUS does play a role in the legislative process.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Nina~

[slim 1,514]

They both do? And Obama can't? Read up on the legislative role of the President of the United States. He's part of the process.

He's not the introducer of bills.

You are not a policymaker either, so what? But people like Buffet, Obama and maybe even you can influence policy. It would be silly to discount them just because they are not "policymakers".

ETA: Mr Big Dog is right. POTUS does play a role in the legislative process.

Are you familiar with which part he plays? Just FYI, he doesn't play the first part.

[Nina~ 431]

He's not the introducer of bills.

Are you familiar with which part he plays? Just FYI, he doesn't play the first part.

Regardless, he still plays a part. And can still set an agenda as the leader of his party and make them introduce the bills.