Warren Buffett calls for higher taxes for US super rich

[dreamdancer 0]

this guy knows which side his bread is buttered...

Quote

The days of 'coddling' America's super-rich with low taxes must end if its debt problems are ever to be solved, according to billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

Buffett has called on US politicians to impose higher taxes on his fellow wealthy Americans, who he says are currently indulged with an unfairly generous tax regime. Writing in the New York Times on Monday, Buffett argued that the richest members of US society are not making a fair contribution to repairing the country's finances.

"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," wrote Buffett, whose personal fortune was estimated at $50bn (£30bn) by Forbes this year.

"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," the 80-year old investor added.

Buffett, a long-time critic of the US tax system, has calculated that he handed over 17.4% of his income as tax last year – a lower proportion than any of the 20 other people who work in his office.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/15/warren-buffett-higher-taxes-super-rich

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[kallend 1,623]

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


Editorial: The Truth About Taxes (August 7, 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.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

yes yes...

higher taxes...

that's nice and all, but alone won't solve the problem.

--
Rob

[mirage62 0]

I’m not a fan of Buffet; some of his comments are confusing at best. Having said that I wonder if I am not slowly being pulled over to the class warfare that we have discussed here.
For example, Buffet writes that at a million and up tax them more, and at 10 million and up tax even more.
Sounds good to me, mainly cause it won’t affect me.
But I have no faith that the government will stop there. In the end they will raise my taxes. Now I know that many here are willing to pay more taxes with a big shit eating grin on their faces. I do not fall into that category.
Many here know that they are safe for the most part as long as Obama stays in office the chances of their taxes going up are fairly small (<$50,000k) This is where Obama’s “tax the $250,000 and up” cry is so well received.
Perhaps I am just falling into their camp. “Just tax the group AHEAD of me”

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[SpeedRacer 1]

Buffett is obviously a damn commie.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rhaig 0]

I don't disagree... the "raise taxes" mantra starts with the rich "because they can afford it" (they have more than me and they're not entitled to it), which doesn't directly effect me because I'm not rich (so I don't care). But, it may ultimately result in taxes being higher on more income brackets which could directly effect me.

Whether or not raising taxes will increase tax revenue is a subject of hot debate. Bottom line is that we need more tax revenue. Will increasing taxes do that? In the long term too?

ALSO we need less spending (when the sum total annual income of everyone who makes more than 1M/year is less than the annual budget, taxing the rich isn't going to help).

--
Rob

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Buffett is obviously a damn commie.

Ya

How many billions is it suspected he made when the down grade was anounced?

He may be calling for more taxes on the rich but I think he has got something up his sleve

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[StreetScooby 5]

Taxable income for millionaires and billionaires last year was a little over 600 billion. Even if they take all of it, it's not going to solve Obama's spending problem. The federal government has a spending problem, big time.

We are all engines of karma

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

Buffett is obviously a damn commie.

Ya

How many billions is it suspected he made when the down grade was anounced?

He may be calling for more taxes on the rich but I think he has got something up his sleve

If someone is so hell bent on wanting his taxes raised, and thinks he is taking the Moral High ground in requesting such a tax. I would only suggest he write out a check for 5 Billion and submit it to the US treasury. Put your money where you month is BuckWheat (Warren) and do it already.

One thing I can't stand is a Cheese Eating Weasel who belly acks he's not paying enough but want do a damn thing about it. Warren!!! write the dame check or Shut the Hell Up.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Taxable income for millionaires and billionaires last year was a little over 600 billion. Even if they take all of it, it's not going to solve Obama's spending problem. The federal government has a spending problem, big time.

The problem is greater than just taxing the rich, agreed. I do think the tax code should try to be fair. Tax as income when it its income.

If a PM at a bulge bracket bank gets a bonus for 10mill its taxed as income. If he starts his own fund he now gets a % of profit and its taxed as capital gains, which is less. Technically/legally its capital gains but any reasonable person would agree that it is income on the part that isnt his own money. There is room there for change.

to be clear, NOT advocating the change in capital gains tax rates. keep them low, ive already payed my taxes on it, thank you.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[champu 1]

oh hey, it's this thread again... weeee....

[DougH 270]

Quote

Taxable income for millionaires and billionaires last year was a little over 600 billion. Even if they take all of it, it's not going to solve Obama's spending problem. The federal government has a spending problem, big time.

I already showed that in a previous thread with census data.

Hell I showed how a 100% tax on all of the income of individuals making over 250K, using 2006 census data, wouldn't solve this problem.

Instead DD switched gears to some nonsense about the minimum wage that NO ONE else here agreed with.

"If you're going to become true dodgeballers, then you've got to learn the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive"

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[billvon 2,400]

>One thing I can't stand is a Cheese Eating Weasel who belly acks he's not paying
>enough but want do a damn thing about it.

Better. IMO, than a cheese eating weasel who wants to benefit from all the US has to offer - but doesn't want to pay for any of it.

[DougH 270]

Quote

>One thing I can't stand is a Cheese Eating Weasel who belly acks he's not paying
>enough but want do a damn thing about it.

Better. IMO, than a cheese eating weasel who wants to benefit from all the US has to offer - but doesn't want to pay [I]Increasingly more for it[/I].

Be accurate Bill. No one here has posted that there should be zero taxes.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

"If you're going to become true dodgeballers, then you've got to learn the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive"

that's 4 - try again
(add in your thumb)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[DougH 270]

Your math skills are improving! Wonders never cease!

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>One thing I can't stand is a Cheese Eating Weasel who belly acks he's not paying
>enough but want do a damn thing about it.

Better. IMO, than a cheese eating weasel who wants to benefit from all the US has to offer - but doesn't want to pay for any of it.

Have you an example of this kind of cheese eating weasel?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

the minimum wage

needs to be increased = quantitative easing for the poor
(the rich have had their go and fluffed it)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[DougH 270]

Quote

Quote

the minimum wage

needs to be increased = quantitative easing for the poor
(the rich have had their go and fluffed it)

The poor would be better off if we let some Ritalin crazed 3rd graders guide economic policy than they would be if we enacted any the nonsense that you post about.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[billvon 2,400]

>No one here has posted that there should be zero taxes.

Nor has anyone posted that rich people should pay five billion extra - but that didn't stop Channman.

No, there shouldn't be zero taxes, nor should there be 100% taxes on anyone. But the way out of this problem is to cut spending drastically and raise taxes drastically. Unfortunately, most people would rather post attacks than even consider solutions.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Be accurate Bill. No one here has posted that there should be zero taxes.

Be accurate, Doug, no one has suggested that tax increases should be done without spending cuts, either.

- Dan G

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

>One thing I can't stand is a Cheese Eating Weasel who belly acks he's not paying
>enough but want do a damn thing about it.

Better. IMO, than a cheese eating weasel who wants to benefit from all the US has to offer - but doesn't want to pay for any of it.

Have you an example of this kind of cheese eating weasel?

WTF do you guys have against cheese?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

The second way for government to address its health costs is not to shift them, but to reduce them. This is what a single-payer health care system would do, largely by taking the for-profit players (insurance companies for the most part) out of the loop.

The advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program estimates that "private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans."

Once everyone is covered, the government would have the clout to bring discipline into the wild west of health care spending. It could insist that providers be paid for quality of service, not quantity. Health facilities and equipment could be managed by regional boards. Medical services could be "bundled" — rather than paying hospitals and doctors and laboratories separately, there would be fixed prices for treatments. And so on.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/14-3

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[DougH 270]

Can't stay on topic can you?

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

The second way for government to address its health costs is not to shift them, but to reduce them. This is what a single-payer health care system would do, largely by taking the for-profit players (insurance companies for the most part) out of the loop.

The advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program estimates that "private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans."

Once everyone is covered, the government would have the clout to bring discipline into the wild west of health care spending. It could insist that providers be paid for quality of service, not quantity. Health facilities and equipment could be managed by regional boards. Medical services could be "bundled" — rather than paying hospitals and doctors and laboratories separately, there would be fixed prices for treatments. And so on.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/14-3

and Obama and the Dems have already said that Obama care will raise prices even faster than if no laws had been passed

Not to mention the 11 circuit just ruled the mandate unconstitututional

What does your moma say about that?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln