Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 146

Thread: Warren Bussett

  1. #1

    Warren Bussett

    Stop Coddling the Super-RichBy WARREN E. BUFFETT
    Published: August 14, 2011

    OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

    While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

    These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

    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.

    If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

    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. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

    I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

    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.

    The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

    I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

    Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

    Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

    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.

    My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...&smid=fb-share

    I think taxes are a responsibility. A certain member likes to ask if anyone had ever heard of a nation taxing itself to prosperity, but the fact is, there really haven't been prosperous nations without taxes.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Taixuquan99 View Post
    I think taxes are a responsibility. A certain member likes to ask if anyone had ever heard of a nation taxing itself to prosperity, but the fact is, there really haven't been prosperous nations without taxes.

    Thoughts?
    That's me, so just say it next time. I wont be offended.

    But the question remains; Can you give me one example of a country taxing itself into prosperity? I notice Buffett didn't name any.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by A Certain Member View Post
    That's me, so just say it next time. I wont be offended.

    But the question remains; Can you give me one example of a country taxing itself into prosperity? I notice Buffett didn't name any.
    Can you name a prosperous country without taxes? If not, then every prosperous country ever fulfills, in function, your request.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Taixuquan99 View Post
    Can you name a prosperous country without taxes? If not, then every prosperous country ever fulfills, in function, your request.
    I never said we don't need taxes, so that statement is flawed. But I am combating the false premise that rasing taxes is good for an economy.

    Just name one country.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Midgard
    Posts
    10,852
    disneyland
    For whoso comes amongst many shall one day find that no one man is by so far the mightiest of all.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    I never said we don't need taxes, so that statement is flawed. But I am combating the false premise that rasing taxes is good for an economy.

    Just name one country.
    Setting taxes reasonable to a situation presumes raising or lowering them based on circumstances in the society and the world at the time. Since you say we need taxes, we must need them for things taxes are for, and so you admit that, if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be raised.

    Thank you.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    North, strong and Free
    Posts
    838
    What is Vatican City Alex?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Taixuquan99 View Post
    Thank you.
    Thanks for what?

    You still haven't gaven me ONE example of a country taxing itself into prosperity.

    Of course I've pointed out 3 different times in the United States history where tax cuts raised revenue as well as raised the tax burden on the rich. Now it's your turn to provide ONE example like I've asked for. Or can you not do that? If you can't, just admit it. I can't, and I have no problem admitting it.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Taixuquan99 View Post
    if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be raised.
    Actually history shows quite the opposite.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    Actually history shows quite the opposite.
    No, history has not shown that if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, that they fulfill their purpose.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Taixuquan99 View Post
    No, history has not shown that if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, that they fulfill their purpose.
    I didn't say they did.

    I'll correct your post so you might see what I mean:

    "if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be lowered."

    Because as I've shown, lowering taxes actually increases revenue.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    It has never been about Tax, it has always been about what you GET for the taxes you pay, that is why some countries pay a lot but you don't see people complain as much.
    Tax the rich only puts the money they have in the pocket of the government and I would prefer the rich SPEND the money on the economy.
    I say TAX the rich IF they don't spend it.
    Monet being spent is what stimulates and keeps economies strong.
    Big taxes only equals big government and NO guarantees that the money gets where it is supoose to go.

    In my view everyone pays the same, say 25% and then add tax "motivators" to motivate those with serious coin to SPEND it IN HOUSE.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    I didn't say they did.

    I'll correct your post so you might see what I mean:

    "if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be lowered."

    Because as I've shown, lowering taxes actually increases revenue.
    This argument is the opposite of what you've already stated, that taxes are necessary. If lowering automatically increases revenue, then lowering to zero increases revenue most.

    What you are avoiding is that there both the possibility of taxes being too high and of being too low, and if the latter, lowering them more is futile.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Taixuquan99 View Post
    This argument is the opposite of what you've already stated, that taxes are necessary.
    I've never stated taxes are not necessary. I believe this is now twice in this thread alone you've attributed things to me I've not even said. Debate what I say, not what you claim I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taixuquan99 View Post
    If lowering automatically increases revenue, then lowering to zero increases revenue most.
    I guess a 'Bell Curve' is not something you are familiar with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taixuquan99 View Post
    What you are avoiding is that there both the possibility of taxes being too high and of being too low, and if the latter, lowering them more is futile.
    Are you saying that taxes are too low right now?

  15. #15
    I didn't see Buffett mention spending, just taxes.

    And I'll wager that Buffett didn't get rich by spending more money than he took in month after month for decades on end and just borrowing more and more money to keep going and going down that path.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •