Most Millionaires Support Warren Buffetts Tax on the Rich

[SMOKE 1,426]

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

they could write checks & mail them. couldn't they?

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

they could write checks & mail them. couldn't they?

they won't make the news as often then....

[lostinblue 1,989]

million-plus earners vs

[SMOKE 1,426]

they won't make the news as often then....

or they could be full of it.

[james&olya 1,121]

Actually it cuts right to the core of the subject. It is not a '####### is bigger' contest...but to point out that you support raising taxes on others. This is a principle I vehemently oppose. It is so easy to put the burden on others.

I find it particularly galling when I see people pointing the tax man at only certain segments of society. We all live here and should all equally share the burden. This principle of equality seems to have gotten lost and has been replaced by the marxist creed 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. This is a noble thought but poor in practice...it creates an incentive to be needy. California is a prime example of this. It had the largest sub economy in the US...now it is a shambles of debt.

We cannot keep spending money we do not have and expect others to pick up the tab. This is morally equivalent to stealing. Propose raising your own taxes and I may support you...but putting the burden on others...I will not.

When I voted for Obama in 2008 it was with the knowledge that he favored raising taxes on incomes over $250.000 yearly. That meant I would pay more in taxes. Why would I do that? Simple. I think that what has made America great is the relative equality of opportunity and the strong middle class here. That is fading into history and will soon be only a memory if the tea-party types continue to have their way.

You say that all who live here should equally "share the burden". How does a minimum wage worker equally share the burden with millionaires? The point you seem to never get is that all of us that are doing well, certainly all of the 1%, do well because of the system in place and the people who make up that system. All the janitors, food-service workers, truck-drivers, etc are necessary for the millionaire to exist. They are already bearing a significant burden by working in low-wage employment. Those who have profited the most from the system should bear the greatest taxes to maintain it. This is justice. This is something that most of the wealthy are aware of and favor! It is a greedy and short-sighted minority that don't. Unfortunately they seem to be holding sway with the repugs in congress.

I agree that it is stealing to advocate policies that spend money you have no intention of being willing to pay your fair share of. I find it repugnant that GWB 'accomplished' both huge tax cuts for the richest and also took us to war needlessly! Why is it not right to expect those that pushed hardest for this war of choice to be ready to accept the tax increases needed to pay for it?

Edited October 30, 2011 by james&olya

[Pooky 3,787]

That is fading into history and will soon be only a memory if the tea-party types Washington machine continues to have their way.

You evidently don't understand what the Tea Party represents, then. Their focus is to shrink government.

Regardless, it's the Republican/Democrat Washington machine that is destroying the middle class in this country, working to erode it from different ends of the spectrum. The Republicans are trying to put more distance between the top end and the middle, so blurring the line between the working and middle classes, while the Democrats want to expand the working class to engulf the middle class.

And whichever way you approach the main parties, it's just a few people with a lot of money that are directing the political path this country is doomed to follow.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Many economists in the UK are none too impressed with the UK's austerity program. mmm, I wonder why? Oh yes, the UK economy is failing to respond positively the conservative governments austerity program.

We economists have a Plan B that will work, Mr Osborne

It is clear plan A isn't working. So try these measures for size

guardian.co.uk, Saturday 29 October 2011 21.31 BST

larger | smaller

It is now clear that plan A isn't working. Wave after wave of economic figures from HM Treasury, national and international economic institutions such as the OECD, the IFS and the IMF have all concluded that the British economy is faltering. The UK jobless total is now at its highest for more than 17 years, while growth has all but stalled.

We urge the government to adopt emergency and commonsense measures for a Plan B that can quickly save jobs and create new ones. A recovery plan could include reversing cuts to protect jobs in the public sector, directing quantitative easing to a green new deal to create thousands of new jobs, increasing benefits to put money into the pockets of those on lower and middle incomes and thus increase aggregate demand.

This could in part be paid for by the introduction of a financial transactions tax. The government could do far more to create the space for new and innovative industries and companies to flourish. One idea is a British investment bank, to leverage and back investment in low-carbon sectors such as housing, transport and renewable energy.

Doing nothing is not an option. We therefore call on the government to put the national interest first and hold an emergency budget that would instigate a Plan B for jobs, fairness and sustainability to rapidly get the economy moving again.

Dr Ha-Joon Chang, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge; Prof Sir Tony Atkinson, Nuffield College, Oxford; Howard Reed, Landman Economics; Chris Edwards

, senior fellow, economics, University of East Anglia

Dr Mark G Hayes, fellow and director of studies in economics, Robinson College, Cambridge University; Prof Susan Himmelweit, professor of economics, Open University; Prof Mariana Mazzucato, chair in the economics of innovation, Open University; Prof Avner Offer, Chichele professor of economic history, University of Oxford, All Souls College; Dr Andrew Trigg, senior lecturer in economics, Open University; Dr David Hudson, senior lecturer in political economy, University College London; Prof Frances Stewart, Professor of development economics, University of Oxford; Dr Andrew Mearman, economics, UWE Bristol; Prof Ian Gough, professorial research fellow, LSE; Prof John Weeks, professor emeritus professor of economics, SOAS; Michael Burke, economist; Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby, University of Kent; Prof Diane Elson, University of Essex, chair UK Women's Budget Group; Prof Richard Smith, professor of econometric theory and economic statistics, University of Cambridge; Prof Rick van der Ploeg, professor of economics, University of Oxford; Robin Murray, senior visiting fellow, LSE; Prof Malcolm Sawyer, professor of economics, University of Leeds; Marina Della Giusta, senior lecturer in economics, University of Reading; Prof William Brown, Montague Burton professor of industrial relations, University of Cambridge; Prof Christine Cooper, Strathclyde University, co-editor of Critical Perspectives on Accounting; Prof Martin Parker, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick; Prof Simon Mohun, emeritus professor of political economy, Queen Mary, University of London; Dr Christopher Bowdler, university lecturer in Economics and Fellow of Oriel College, University of Oxford; Dr Diego Sanchez-Ancochea, university lecturer in the political economy of Latin America, University of Oxford; Alan Freeman, economist, London Metropolitan University; Dr Andy Denis, director of undergraduate studies, economics department, City University London; Dr Bruce Philp, Nottingham Business School, coordinator, association for heterodox economics; Dr Chris Fuller, Royal Docks Business School, University of East London; Dr Christian Kellerman, economist; Dr Jamie Gough, department of town and regional planning, University of Sheffield; Dr Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, lecturer in political economy and behavioural science, UCL; Dr Jonathan Perraton, University of Sheffield; Dr Michael Dietrich, department of economics, University of Sheffield; Dr Michael Gasiorek, senior lecturer in economics, University of Sussex; Dr Molly Scott Cato, reader in green economics, Cardiff Metropolitan University; Dr Ozlem Onaran, senior lecturer in economics, University of Westminster; Dr Paul Segal, lecturer in economics, University of Sussex; Dr Peter Holmes, reader in economics, Sussex University; Dr Peter North, senior lecturer, school for environmental sciences, University of Liverpool; Dr Pritam Singh, reader in economics, Oxford Brookes University; Dr Stephanie Blankenburg, department of economics and CISD (centre for international studies & diplomacy), SOAS; Prof Geoffrey Hodgson, research professor of business studies, University of Hertfordshire; Ismail Erturk, Manchester Business School; James Meadway, senior economist, nef; Prof Jan Toporowski, professor of economics and finance, chair of the economics department, SOAS, University of London; Prof Janet Newman, emeritus professor, The Open University; Jerome de Henau, lecturer in economics, Open University; Michael Edwards, senior lecturer in the economics of planning, UCL; Prof Michael Lipton FBA, professor of economics, University of Sussex; Prof George Irvin, SOAS, University of London; Prof Gregor Gall, director of the Work and Employment Research Unit (WERU), University of Hertfordshire; Prof Hugh Willmott, Cardiff Business School; Prof Malcolm Sawyer, Leeds University Business School; Prof Prem Sikka, Essex Business School; Prof Alan Hallsworth, Staffordshire University; Prof Andrew Dobson, Keele University; Prof David Bailey, Coventry University Business School; Prof Matthew Watson, University of Warwick; Prof Miguel Martinez Lucio, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester; Prof Paul Thompson, Strathclyde Business School; Prof Simon Lilley, head of University of Leicester School of Management; Prof Tony Thirlwall, Department of Economics, University of Kent; Richard Murphy, Director, Tax Research UK; Stewart Lansley, research fellow, Bristol University; Dr. Olivier Ratle, University of the West of England, Bristol; Roberto Veneziani, senior lecturer in Economics, QML; John Christensen, economic adviser and director, Tax Justice Network, London; Prof Machiko Nissanke, professor of economics, SOAS, University of London; Dr Pritam Singh, reader in economics, Oxford Brookes University; Prof Victoria Chick, emeritus professor of economics, UCL; Dr Sally Ruane, De Montfort University, Leicester; Kitty Ussher, associate, Demos; Prof Richard Grayson, Goldsmiths, University of London; Prof Stefano Harney, School of Business and Management, Queen Mary, University of London; Tony Greenham, nef; Gez Sagar, head of strategy, economy communications centre, HM Treasury (2009-2010); Dr Anastasia Nesvetailova, director, MA in global political economy, department of international politics, City University London; Andrew Simms, nef; Anna Coote, nef; Prof David Held, Graham Wallas professor of political science, LSE; Dr David Hall-Matthews, senior lecturer in international development, University of Leeds; Prof Danny Dorling, University of Sheffield; Prof Jonathan Rutherford, Middlesex University; Prof Mary Kaldor, LSE; Prof the Baroness Ruth Lister of Burtersett, Loughborough University; Valentino Piana, director, Economics Web Institute; Dr Heather Savigny, University of East Anglia; Dr Stuart White, Jesus College, University of Oxford; Prof Dave Byrne, Durham University; Prof Alan Finlayson, University of East Anglia; Prof Ken Spours, Institute of Education; Dr Martin O'Neill, lecturer in political philosophy, York University; Prof David Purdy; Prof Stuart Holland, faculty of economics, University of Coimbra (& former MP for Vauxhall); Tim Jenkins, nef; Victor Anderson, former economist for Sustainable Development Commission

I didn't choose to be arrested

Your account of my arrest is un-grounded and based on inaccurate speculation (Profile). Its entire analysis is based on an assumption that I had a choice about my arrest. The reason my partner's and my arrest is significant is that it shows that people are being taken off the street in America by the state for lawful activity that would not lead to their arrests.

The NYPD arrested us for standing peaceably on the sidewalk. I would never choose the fairly disturbing experience of being taken in handcuffs to a location that was intentionally concealed from our fellow protesters and our attorneys.

Naomi Wolf

New York

Foreign news is in good hands

The suggestion that greater use of local BBC journalists will affect the impartiality or quality of our foreign coverage simply does not stand up to scrutiny (Peter Preston).The World Service has been reporting for decades and in many languages from all corners of the globe. The vast majority of these overseas reporters are local nationals and have extensive experience of bravely reporting from some of the most dangerous and corrupt places in the world and always remaining impartial. It is these journalists who will be appearing more frequently on domestic news for the BBC. The BBC will be enriched by the diversity of voice and perspective and our audiences, domestic and global, will benefit from it.

Liliane Landor

Controller, languages

BBC Global News

London WC2

Don't tax us with unfair gibes

HM Revenue and Customs has taken quite a battering in recent months. The media (including The Observer, "Welcome to Britain, a haven for tax dodgers"), Parliament and pressure groups have variously accused HMRC of dishonesty, incompetence, secrecy and doing dodgy "sweetheart deals" with big business.

As chairman of HMRC, I feel that I should stand up publicly to defend the competence and integrity of my department. Last year, we brought in a record £486bn in tax revenue. Included in that was a record £13.9bn recovered from individuals and businesses who bent or broke the rules – more than twice as much as in 2005.

HMRC does not do "sweetheart deals" with big business. Our job is to get the tax that they owe. Since we can't talk about the details of these cases we are accused of unnecessary secrecy. The real culprits are those who hide funds in offshore accounts, cheat their VAT and falsify their accounts.

Mike Clasper

Chair, HMRC

London SW1A

William Keegan, we salute you

We were most disappointed by the news that William Keegan's column will henceforth appear in the Observer only fortnightly. A great virtue of your newspaper has been its willingness to support opinion that constructively challenges economic orthodoxy. Halving the regular analysis of your admired economics commentator is inconsistent with that noble tradition.

We must declare an interest: we, too, have challenged orthodoxy and some of the undersigned have been guest contributors to the column. William Keegan has provided his readers with a unique perspective on political economy for more than 30 years. It is a great pity that we will be seeing less of our old friend in your pages, when, in such times as these, we would like to see more.

Roger Bootle, Capital Economics; Stephen King, HSBC; John Llewellyn, Llewellyn Consulting; Gerard Lyons, Standard Chartered; David Marsh, Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum; Bill Martin, Centre for Business Research, Cambridge; Barry Moore, Downing College, Cambridge; Robert Rowthorn, emeritus professor of economics, Cambridge

© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/oct/30/observer-letters-economists-george-osborne/print

[dalegg 143]

I don't think taxing the higher income brackets is really fair, and I hate the idea of my own taxes going up but I don't see a way around it. Ideally the government would shrink and there wouldn't be waste and we could just spend what we took in and no less, but lets face it- that isn't going to happen.

Right now you have a Super-Committee that is struggling to find 1.2 Trillion in "cuts" over the next 10 years. 1.2 Trillion dollars isn't even our deficit for 1 year and they can't come to agreement on a ten year plan. Even if they do come to an agreement, if all else continues as it is we won't even realize that 1.2 Trillion has been cut 10 years from now because we will still add 10 Trillion more to the debt.

So what are we to do? We can continue to argue over what is fair and what is not fair and meanwhile we march steadily forward to certain destruction. I hate to pay more taxes or force others to pay taxes into a system that is ultimately full of waste and inefficiencies but I'm steadily seeing that there is no choice. We all need to pony up more, and yes that means the rich will pay even more. Its not fair, but what can you do? They survived paying more than us for most of the last century up until 10 years ago and going back to that system won't put them in the dog house today. Got to do it. I hate it but its true.

[mawilson 2,133]

How does a minimum wage worker equally share the burden with millionaires?

Simple. The minimum wage worker pays 20 percent, the millionaire pays 20 percent (or a bit more).

That's how it is in Denmark - the country with the least income inequality of all the EU countries - except income over $8,000 there is taxed at 45%.

When our poor and middle class start paying a 45 percent income tax, we can talk about raising the rate for millionaires.

Income tax in Denmark:

Social contribution (Gross tax) - 8%

Over DKK 42,900 (USD 8,000):

Municipal tax - 23% - 28%

Health tax (Region tax) - 8%

Base state tax - 3.76%

Over DKK 389,900 (USD 74,000):

Top state tax - 15%

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Simple. The minimum wage worker pays 20 percent, the millionaire pays 20 percent (or a bit more).

That's how it is in Denmark - the country with the least income inequality of all the EU countries - except income over $8,000 there is taxed at 45%.

When our poor and middle class start paying a 45 percent income tax, we can talk about raising the rate for millionaires.

Income tax in Denmark:

Social contribution (Gross tax) - 8%

Over DKK 42,900 (USD 8,000):

Municipal tax - 23% - 28%

Health tax (Region tax) - 8%

Base state tax - 3.76%

Over DKK 389,900 (USD 74,000):

Top state tax - 15%

Why'd you leave out the samples from that same wiki entry?

Is it because it shows that the low incomes - and even the average incomes - do not pay 45% income taxes?

Danish tax examples as of 2010:

If you have what is considered a very low income (DKK 150,000, USD 26,550) you pay approx. DKK 44,500 in income tax (including gross tax), i.e. approx. 29.7% of the full amount.

If you have what is considered a very low income (DKK 150,000, USD 26,550), and you pay DKK 20,000 annually in interest, you pay approx. DKK 38,000 in income tax (including gross tax), i.e. approx. 25.3% of the full amount.

If you have what is considered an average income (DKK 375,000, USD 66,370) you pay approx. DKK 134,800 in income tax, i.e. approx. 35.9% of the full amount.

If you have what is considered an average income (DKK 375,000, USD 66,370), and you pay DKK 30,000 annually in interest, you pay approx. DKK 125,100 in income tax, i.e. approx. 33.04% of the full amount.

If you have what is considered a high income (DKK 780,000, USD 138,050), you pay approx. DKK 351,200 in income tax, i.e. approx. 45.0% of the full amount.

If you have what is considered a high income (DKK 780,000, USD 138,050), and you pay at least DKK 50,000 annually in interest, you pay approx. DKK 334,900 in income tax, i.e. approx. 42.9% of the full amount.

Let's take the lower income for a moment and play the numbers for the US. Take annual income of $26,550.00 less $5,800.00 (SD) less $3,700.00 (EX) = $17,050.00 taxable income.

Federal Income tax: $2,133 (12.51%) - the first $8,000.00 are in the 10% bracket, the rest in the 15% bracket.

SS&Medicare tax: $1,295.00 (7.6%)

State and local taxes: $2,100.00 (12%) - reasonable assumption of income taxes and/or property taxes.

So, here we are at 20.82% tax burden and that does not yet cover medical insurance which the Danes have included in their tax burden. I think we can agree that it will take at the very least 2,500.00/year for an individual to obtain the kind of policy that provides coverage similar to the coverage enjoyed by your average citizen of Denmark - that is, as long as said individual is young and healthy. And voila, here we are with an effective >30% burden on the low income earner in the USofA.

You see, once you compare Apples to Apples, the less fortunate in the US are not getting as much of a free ride as you'd like to suggest.

[mawilson 2,133]

If you have what is considered a very low income (DKK 150,000, USD 26,550) you pay approx. DKK 44,500 in income tax (including gross tax), i.e. approx. 29.7% of the full amount.

Let's take the lower income for a moment and play the numbers for the US. Take annual income of $26,550.00 less $5,800.00 (SD) less $3,700.00 (EX) = $17,050.00 taxable income.

So, here we are at 20.82% tax burden and that does not yet cover medical insurance which the Danes have included in their tax burden.

So the effective rate in Denmark is 29.7% and here it's 20.82%? That's almost 10 percent more!

Guess what, if everybody (including the poor) agreed to pay 10 percent more in taxes, we could easily have Medicare for all.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So the effective rate in Denmark is 29.7% and here it's 20.82%? That's almost 10 percent more!

Guess what, if everybody (including the poor) agreed to pay 10 percent more in taxes, we could easily have Medicare for all.

Not really. You conveniently forget what people fork over for health insurance which the Danish tax code includes but ours doesn't. Arguably, health insurance is much larger a burden for low income earners than it is for high income earners. Average cost of a health insurance policy that would be the equivalent of European style coverage runs at about 5K-6K/year. Now calculate that and then tell me how the low income earner in the US is so much better off and so much less brudened than his Danish counterpart.

[mawilson 2,133]

Not really.

You don't think we could have Medicare for all if we raised the Medicare tax from 1.45% to 11.45%?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You don't think we could have Medicare for all if we raised the Medicare tax from 1.45% to 11.45%?

Sure we could. But we don't. And until we do, low income taxpayers pay far more than 10% of their income for health insurance. Or they don't carry any insurance at all and rather stick you and me with their eventual bills.

[mawilson 2,133]

Sure we could. But we don't. And until we do, low income taxpayers pay far more than 10% of their income for health insurance.

Well some don't, as you know