Stop Coddling The Super-Rich
-
BANGALORE (Reuters) - Billionaire Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.
"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," The 80-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times.
Buffett, one of the world's richest men and chairman of conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc , said his federal tax bill last year 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," he said.
Lawmakers engaged in a partisan battle over spending and taxes for more than three months before agreeing on August 2 to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling, avoiding a U.S. default.
"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," Buffett said.
Buffett said higher taxes for the rich will not discourage investment.
"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," he said
"People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."
************
Now who are the people here bitching about fairness and the discrepancy of wealth?
-
And this man just made my signature. I seriously don't understand why more billionaires can't be like this guy or Bill Gates.
-
18 percent does seem really low.
Taxes on dividends and capital gains really should be raised, at least a few points.
-
President Barack Obama just endorsed Warren Buffett's op-ed in the New York Times today calling on higher taxes on the wealthy.
“He said we’ve got to stop coddling billionaires like me,” Obama said at a town hall event in Cannon Falls, MN, a stop on his three-day bus tour. “That’s what Warren Buffett said.”
“He pointed out that he pays a lower tax rate than anybody in his office, including the secretary,” he added. “He figured out that his tax bill, he paid about 17 percent. And the reason is because most of his wealth comes from capital gains.”
“You don’t get those tax breaks, you’re paying more than that,” Obama said.
The president also called for the new Super Committee tasked with $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts to embrace Buffett's proposals for more substantial savings.
Buffett defended increasing taxes from claims that doing so would hurt the economy, writing: "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."
Obama will hold another town hall in Decorah, Iowa this afternoon.
Source http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-warren-buffett-is-right-on-taxes-2011-8#ixzz1VB9Lq968
-
President Barack Obama just endorsed Warren Buffett's op-ed in the New York Times today calling on higher taxes on the wealthy.
“He said we’ve got to stop coddling billionaires like me,” Obama said at a town hall event in Cannon Falls, MN, a stop on his three-day bus tour. “That’s what Warren Buffett said.”
“He pointed out that he pays a lower tax rate than anybody in his office, including the secretary,” he added. “He figured out that his tax bill, he paid about 17 percent. And the reason is because most of his wealth comes from capital gains.”
“You don’t get those tax breaks, you’re paying more than that,” Obama said.
The president also called for the new Super Committee tasked with $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts to embrace Buffett's proposals for more substantial savings.
Buffett defended increasing taxes from claims that doing so would hurt the economy, writing: "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."
Obama will hold another town hall in Decorah, Iowa this afternoon.
Source http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-warren-buffett-is-right-on-taxes-2011-8#ixzz1VB9Lq968
I agree. The super wealthy need to pay more taxes. Just not fair.
-
They are both Democrats. Who cares what they think. Let them donate their extra money to pay off the debt instead
of stupidly making worthless Obamao supporting jaw-flappy.
-
Cal, 17.4% is probably less than you pay. It's less than what I normally pay.
Anyway, Buffett could always volunteer to pay more taxes. Put your money where your mouth is, Warren!
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By 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.
Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.
-
Buffet is playing partisan politics with the issue.
Buffet can simply write a check to the gove for 65% if he wants to.
but no, he'll just pander a class warfare kind of opinion in favor of ObaMao.
Boring.
-
Buffet is playing partisan politics with the issue.
Buffet can simply write a check to the gove for 65% if he wants to.
but no, he'll just pander a class warfare kind of opinion in favor of ObaMao.
Boring.
-
Buffet is playing partisan politics with the issue.
Buffet can simply write a check to the gove for 65% if he wants to.
but no, he'll just pander a class warfare kind of opinion in favor of ObaMao.
Boring.
Buffet is playing partisan politics with the issue.
Buffet can simply write a check to the gove for 65% if he wants to.
but no, he'll just pander a class warfare kind of opinion in favor of ObaMao.
Boring.
So you don't mind paying a higher percentage of your taxable income to income taxes than a billionaire did?
-
So you don't mind paying a higher percentage of your taxable income to income taxes than a billionaire did? PE
************************************
No, where the bleep did you get that? Did I miss something? LOL
I choose to stop the runaway spending so none of us has to pay higher taxes.
Buffet can simply go ahead and give ALL his money to the gov, for all I care.
But this corrupt somebeech president and dems in the Senate will just keep spending it, and buying votes.
I favor a flat tax. Plain and simple. THAT is EVERYBODY's fair share.
One percentage for every freakin body. if you choose to have eighteen kids, then you best
have a good job, because giving deductions for kids backfires, like giving illegals free college and
a place to live and a food allowance.
It sounds nice, but the results weren't what you expected.
That is, unless, you one of those who want to buy indebted, dependent on Dems, for more votes in the next election.
-
Actually, I support a flat tax too; except that earned income should absolutely be taxed at a lower rate than investment income. Investment income really should be taxed at a higher rate than it currently is.
-
You could be right, I'm not sure.
If you tax investment income higher, that increases the risk, with less return.
So, I would imagine that would lessen the investment return, and lessen the investment....
negating it in some circumstances.
But wouldn't that figure into the stocks, and affect retirement funds invested?
A lot of things are complicated. Not emotionally simple, like the Dems say it is,
to simply pander for votes. Not saying you are doing that.....
But what would be the reaction to dramatically raising taxes higher on investment income, do you think?
-
So you don't mind paying a higher percentage of your taxable income to income taxes than a billionaire did? PE
************************************
No, where the bleep did you get that? Did I miss something? LOL
I choose to stop the runaway spending so none of us has to pay higher taxes.
Buffet can simply go ahead and give ALL his money to the gov, for all I care.
But this corrupt somebeech president and dems in the Senate will just keep spending it, and buying votes.
I favor a flat tax. Plain and simple. THAT is EVERYBODY's fair share.
One percentage for every freakin body. if you choose to have eighteen kids, then you best
have a good job, because giving deductions for kids backfires, like giving illegals free college and
a place to live and a food allowance.
It sounds nice, but the results weren't what you expected.
That is, unless, you one of those who want to buy indebted, dependent on Dems, for more votes in the next election.
So you don't mind paying a higher percentage of your taxable income to income taxes than a billionaire did? PE
************************************
No, where the bleep did you get that? Did I miss something? LOL
I choose to stop the runaway spending so none of us has to pay higher taxes.
Buffet can simply go ahead and give ALL his money to the gov, for all I care.
But this corrupt somebeech president and dems in the Senate will just keep spending it, and buying votes.
I favor a flat tax. Plain and simple. THAT is EVERYBODY's fair share.
One percentage for every freakin body. if you choose to have eighteen kids, then you best
have a good job, because giving deductions for kids backfires, like giving illegals free college and
a place to live and a food allowance.
It sounds nice, but the results weren't what you expected.
That is, unless, you one of those who want to buy indebted, dependent on Dems, for more votes in the next election.
I proposed a flat tax with graduated levels of tax.......you pissed on that now you say flat tax is cool here. If you want a person making 10K to pay 1500 in taxes and a person making 100K to pay to pay 15K in taxes you are assuring the poorest go completely broke. A flat tax to work needs a no tax min ceiling and a graduated limit to to a modest increase. Otherwise, you become a moron of economics and supporting total economic destruction. Which Cal everything you have ever said supports. But have proven to have no clue about economics proven by your desire to keep Bush destrnomics in place.
-
So you don't mind paying a higher percentage of your taxable income to income taxes than a billionaire did? PE
************************************
No, where the bleep did you get that? Did I miss something? LOL
I choose to stop the runaway spending so none of us has to pay higher taxes.
Buffet can simply go ahead and give ALL his money to the gov, for all I care.
But this corrupt somebeech president and dems in the Senate will just keep spending it, and buying votes.
I favor a flat tax. Plain and simple. THAT is EVERYBODY's fair share.
One percentage for every freakin body. if you choose to have eighteen kids, then you best
have a good job, because giving deductions for kids backfires, like giving illegals free college and
a place to live and a food allowance.
It sounds nice, but the results weren't what you expected.
That is, unless, you one of those who want to buy indebted, dependent on Dems, for more votes in the next election.
I proposed a flat tax with graduated levels of tax.......you pissed on that now you say flat tax is cool here. If you want a person making 10K to pay 1500 in taxes and a person making 100K to pay to pay 15K in taxes you are assuring the poorest go completely broke. A flat tax to work needs a no tax min ceiling and a graduated limit to to a modest increase. Otherwise, you become a moron of economics and supporting total economic destruction. Which Cal everything you have ever said supports. But have proven to have no clue about economics proven by your desire to keep Bush destrnomics in place.
A flat tax to work needs a no tax min ceiling and a graduated limit to to a modest increase. O
Wouldn't that make it, erm, not a flat tax?
-
Rich (you goofball)...
Flat tax = percentage.
It's the same percentage for everybody, Rich.
Egad.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login