View Full Version : Stop coddling the super-rich, Warren Buffett says
DemonGeminiX
08-15-2011, 05:56 PM
Billionaire urges lawmakers to raise taxes on rich to help cut budget deficit
Reuters
Billionaire Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers Monday 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."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44143776/?GT1=43001
Pat Buchanan Challenges Warren Buffett: 'Set an Example and Send a Check for $5 Billion to the Federal Government'
By Noel Sheppard | August 15, 2011 | 09:11
The liberal media are predictably fawning over billionaire Warren Buffett's op-ed in the New York Times Monday calling for new taxes on the super-rich.
This led MSNBC's Pat Buchanan on Monday's "Morning Joe" to challenge the Oracle of Omaha asking, "Why doesn’t he set an example and send a check for $5 billion to the federal government?"
PAT BUCHANAN: No, I’m writing a note to Warren Buffett. But look, I’m a little fed up with these people who come on, you know, their big op-eds, all these admonitions. Why doesn’t he set an example and send a check for $5 billion to the federal government? He’s got about $40 billion. You know, you had a plan up there, I talked to Howie Carr at Boston where the super-rich could contribute an extra amount. It was something like one-tenth of one percent did it. You get all this noise from these big rich folks. Let them send checks and set an example instead of writing op-eds.
Indeed.
Of course, the liberals in the media never seem to think about this hypocrisy.
The folks at the Huffington Post were so excited about Buffett's call they featured it as a headline at their front page.
VIDEO:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/15/pat-buchanan-challenges-warren-buffett-set-example-and-send-check-5-b#ixzz1V6SASwqF
DemonGeminiX
08-15-2011, 06:13 PM
And if he did send them a check, none of his mega-rich peers would match it.
And if he did send them a check, none of his mega-rich peers would match it.
True that!
That's why Soros keeps his funds offshore, he wouldn't be caught dead paying the taxes he advocates! Just the same way he lobbied for tough regulations then closed up shop when he would have to open the books to the S.E.C.
DemonGeminiX
08-15-2011, 06:42 PM
:-s
And what about the other cats you're not naming?
Acid Trip
08-15-2011, 06:50 PM
Warren can send as much money to the Federal government as he sees fit. Has he ever done it? Hell no!
This is the same Warren Buffett who partnered with Bill Gates and the other super rich to create foundations that will absorb all of their wealth when they die. Why do that? It skirts the death tax. You know, a tax that they should be more than willing to pay. He can't honestly say the rich should pay more in taxes when he does everything he can to avoid them. Typical liberal.
I really don’t think it matters what party they support, they are all as bad as each other, the more they have the less they want to part with it, everyone should be paying the same percentage in personal tax, and it’s the only fair way to do things, and at least someone has had the balls to stand up and say it!
Muddy
08-15-2011, 07:08 PM
True that!
That's why Soros keeps his funds offshore, he wouldn't be caught dead paying the taxes he advocates! Just the same way he lobbied for tough regulations then closed up shop when he would have to open the books to the S.E.C.
Warren can send as much money to the Federal government as he sees fit. Has he ever done it? Hell no!
This is the same Warren Buffett who partnered with Bill Gates and the other super rich to create foundations that will absorb all of their wealth when they die. Why do that? It skirts the death tax. You know, a tax that they should be more than willing to pay. He can't honestly say the rich should pay more in taxes when he does everything he can to avoid them. Typical liberal.
I think it's amusing to see you run to the defense of the poor defenseless mega rich.. :lol:
So whats wrong with everyone pay the same tax? 35% or whatever the average is?
:-s
And what about the other cats you're not naming?
Name them then! I'm not protecting anyone! I brought up Soros specifically because he has said the same things a few times. Even the dickhead Mark Zuckerberg, he had that town-hall with Obama and whined that he can afford to pay more taxes. :roll: WHO'S STOPPING HIM?
Lambchop
08-15-2011, 07:18 PM
I didn't know that the super rich had to pay a smaller percentage than the average guy in taxes. :lolwut:
DemonGeminiX
08-15-2011, 07:44 PM
Name them then! I'm not protecting anyone! I brought up Soros specifically because he has said the same things a few times. Even the dickhead Mark Zuckerberg, he had that town-hall with Obama and whined that he can afford to pay more taxes. :roll: WHO'S STOPPING HIM?
I can't seem to name any. Oh yeah, that's right. I never hear about them because you guys are always bitching about the one's whose politics you don't agree with.
How about this? Instead of focusing on the one's whose political leanings you don't like, why not focus on all of them and stick to the topic without spinning it into a particular direction to slam the political leaning you don't like?
Who stopping them? The government with all their tax breaks. It's not "paying taxes" if they're volunteering. You don't "donate" taxes. You don't choose when to pay them, the government tells you when you have to pay them. That's how "taxes" work.
There's no reason for the megarich not to pay an equal percentage. This country enabled them to get rich, they can afford what Buffett is suggesting. They can consider it giving back to their country. It's not like they're not going to be billionaires anymore after they pay their equal percentage of taxes.
:roll: <- I just did that to copy you, Antz. :nana:
PorkChopSandwiches
08-15-2011, 07:50 PM
This is the same Warren Buffett who partnered with Bill Gates and the other super rich to create foundations that will absorb all of their wealth when they die.
They were trying to get the super rich to donate half of there riches when they die to help out the less fortunate, its called philanthropy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/04/us-billionaires-half-fortune-gates
The intention was not to skirt the death tax.
Acid Trip
08-15-2011, 07:59 PM
It's so hard to debate taxes when hardly anyone knows how they work. Does Buffett pay a lower overall percentage (when compared to total income) than his secretary? Yes. Does he pay less in taxes? Hell no. Let me explain.
The vast majority of Buffett's income is from capital gains. Capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than standard income. Why? Well in order to get capital gains you must invest capital which you have already paid taxes on. Capital gains is essentially a double tax. You pay the tax as income then pay taxes again as that invested capital grows.
Say I earned $200,000 last year and paid $50k in taxes. I'm left with $150k and I decided to invest 50k in stocks. At the end of the next year the 50k I invested in stocks earned me 10k in dividends. I will pay 15% of that 10k in taxes (that's the capital gains tax). That SEEMS unfair but it really isn't. The 50k of capital I invested was already taxed once (at 25% in my example) but now I'm being taxed an additional 15% for every dollar my money earns.
Say Buffett has 10 billion invested in various markets and he makes 1 billion from it. He will pay 15% of that 1 billion in capital gains tax. It makes it look like he's only paying 15%. Too bad he already paid 20-40% in income tax BEFORE he ever had a chance to invest it.
Say his secretary makes 100k. She'll pay a higher overall percentage of her income in taxes because it's income tax, not capital gains tax. If she was paid 100k in dividends (aka capital gains) she'd pay the same 15% rate.
If that doesn't make sense to you then I suggest an Economics course at your local college.
Acid Trip
08-15-2011, 08:04 PM
They were trying to get the super rich to donate half of there riches when they die to help out the less fortunate, its called philanthropy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/04/us-billionaires-half-fortune-gates
The intention was not to skirt the death tax.
You have no proof they didn't do it to avoid the estate/death tax just like I have no proof of the opposite.
All I’m pointing out is that that kind of tax planning, regardless of motivation, is inconsistent with Buffett and Gates’ public statements in support of the estate tax. Sure, philanthropy is about supporting causes you’re passionate about — in fact, that’s half the point. The U.S. government isn’t quite as passionate about R&D in the developing world, and yet rather than fulfill their moral obligation by supporting the society and democratic principles (including decisions as to the allocation of public funds) that made their wealth possible, they’ve privately chosen to support causes they consider more important. I don’t necessarily disagree with the decision but it is inconsistent with their statements.
"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.
This is what people are missing about this little sleight of mouth here.
What's a "sensible investment?" One where you have a likely potential to make a somewhat substantial return on your investment.
What is left out is, additional taxes and regulation eat into that margin, thus making a bunch of transactions that otherwise would have been sensible, not quite so. If your profit margin is just a few percentage points, which a LOT of industries have, then...oh, just that piddling couple percent...
Yeah, that's your profit that just went out the window there. With no profit, how is it sensible?
Case closed. Leaving out important details just makes you seem dishonest, or having an ulterior motive. What's yours, Warren?
And what do you have to say about the math on the ENTIRE equation, where "the rich" are quite blatantly proven to not have even close to what it takes to fix the fiscal disaster our government has put us in?
:-k
allright then, buh bye with your half baked garbage!
Muddy
08-15-2011, 08:54 PM
allright then, buh bye with your half baked garbage!
Yes, Warren Buffet the richest man on the planet is a complete idiot....
Thank you for that enlightenment.. :)
no, I said his statement was half baked garbage! the enlightenment part was the profit margin :thumbsup:
:razz:
Muddy
08-15-2011, 08:58 PM
So, you think He is in Obamas pocket? The guy seems pretty reasonable to me...
Hal-9000
08-15-2011, 09:15 PM
It's so hard to debate taxes when hardly anyone knows how they work. Does Buffett pay a lower overall percentage (when compared to total income) than his secretary? Yes. Does he pay less in taxes? Hell no. Let me explain.
The vast majority of Buffett's income is from capital gains. Capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than standard income. Why? Well in order to get capital gains you must invest capital which you have already paid taxes on. Capital gains is essentially a double tax. You pay the tax as income then pay taxes again as that invested capital grows.
Say I earned $200,000 last year and paid $50k in taxes. I'm left with $150k and I decided to invest 50k in stocks. At the end of the next year the 50k I invested in stocks earned me 10k in dividends. I will pay 15% of that 10k in taxes (that's the capital gains tax). That SEEMS unfair but it really isn't. The 50k of capital I invested was already taxed once (at 25% in my example) but now I'm being taxed an additional 15% for every dollar my money earns.
Say Buffett has 10 billion invested in various markets and he makes 1 billion from it. He will pay 15% of that 1 billion in capital gains tax. It makes it look like he's only paying 15%. Too bad he already paid 20-40% in income tax BEFORE he ever had a chance to invest it.
Say his secretary makes 100k. She'll pay a higher overall percentage of her income in taxes because it's income tax, not capital gains tax. If she was paid 100k in dividends (aka capital gains) she'd pay the same 15% rate.
If that doesn't make sense to you then I suggest an Economics course at your local college.
:thumbsup: So the gov has to determine what are capital gains and what is actually 'first earned' taxable income for people like Warren
the only capital gain I've had is when the ho's brought in an extra 100 dollars one Friday night :|...I had already paid for their training, their clothes, their apartment, their drug addictions, their beatings...
So, you think He is in Obamas pocket? The guy seems pretty reasonable to me...
No, all kidding aside, he's merely trying to be fashionable.
Hal-9000
08-15-2011, 09:43 PM
of course a guy in his 80's with billions can say this now...he's facing the bright light soon
Muddy
08-15-2011, 09:53 PM
No, all kidding aside, he's merely trying to be fashionable.
Probably, but really I think the guy lives a very modest lifestyle considering he could buy Bulgaria with cash money if he wanted to..
I dont think he's out of touch..
Teh One Who Knocks
08-15-2011, 09:55 PM
Probably, but really I think the guy lives a very modest lifestyle considering he could buy Bulgaria with cash money if he wanted to..
I dont think he's out of touch..
Hey! I was gonna buy Bulgaria :x
Muddy
08-15-2011, 09:57 PM
GDP (official exchange rate) (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2195):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/field_listing_on.gif (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2195.html#bu) $47.7 billion (2010 est.)
Teh One Who Knocks
08-15-2011, 09:59 PM
GDP (official exchange rate) (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2195):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/field_listing_on.gif (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2195.html#bu) $47.7 billion (2010 est.)
I'm good for it :hand:
I think it's amusing to see you run to the defense of the poor defenseless mega rich.. :lol:
:clue:
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't give a rats ass what they're taxed at. Because like I've said a dozen times over the years, the more you tax the super rich, the more ways they explore to shelter their money. There was the celebrated UBS scandal, a few years ago, when they were going to expose the names of all the super rich and Hollywood types that had stashed their cash in the Swiss banks. This would have exposed them for the hypocrites they are! But it hit too close to home, strings were pulled and the story quietly faded away! How about that! I'm sure there would have been rich from both sides, but now we'll never know?? The money has now been cleared out of Switzerland and dispersed to other off shore accounts.
So, you think He is in Obamas pocket? The guy seems pretty reasonable to me...
He was! Him and O were best buddies all through the election, and Obama constantly touted that Buffett was his adviser. This was documented and talked about regularly at AS. at the time. Then Obama dropped him the minute Buffett criticized his deviation from the policies and promises Obama sold himself with during the election. Too bad Buffett didn't realize earlier what a fraud he was fooled into supporting!
http://i.imgur.com/RhBEu.jpg
Southern Belle
08-15-2011, 11:41 PM
I just sent emails to my US legislators. I may get in trouble for it.
Leefro
08-15-2011, 11:46 PM
I'm good for it :hand:
I bet you have spent that in the pub since you were 21
Deepsepia
08-15-2011, 11:52 PM
So, you think He is in Obamas pocket? The guy seems pretty reasonable to me...
He is reasonable.
He thinks its nuts that his secretary pays a higher marginal tax rate than he does.
He's right, it is nuts.
He also thinks its nuts for the wealthy to think that their good fortune is entirely the result of their superiority (he's very frank that he's been very lucky).
One might add: highly unequal societies are wildly inefficient. That's not a "left" point of view . . . old man Henry Ford observed that having workers who can afford to buy the stuff you make means . . . you sell more stuff.
A billionaire, even a billionaire with an exotic car collection, is never going to be able to demand enough cars to keep a factory going. And when he buys a new car -- is that the difference between his being able to hold down a job? Nope. But it is for poorer folks . . . for many unemployed folks, transportation turns out to be one of the key variables in whether they stay unemployed, or work.
Bottom line: we have very high taxes on relatively poorer working class folks, and significantly lower taxes on much wealthier folks . . . that's a bad idea.
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.
DemonGeminiX
08-16-2011, 09:23 AM
I just sent emails to my US legislators. I may get in trouble for it.
:lol:
Ok, Belle. What did you say, hun?
He is reasonable.
He thinks its nuts that his secretary pays a higher marginal tax rate than he does.
He's right, it is nuts.
He also thinks its nuts for the wealthy to think that their good fortune is entirely the result of their superiority (he's very frank that he's been very lucky).
One might add: highly unequal societies are wildly inefficient. That's not a "left" point of view . . . old man Henry Ford observed that having workers who can afford to buy the stuff you make means . . . you sell more stuff.
A billionaire, even a billionaire with an exotic car collection, is never going to be able to demand enough cars to keep a factory going. And when he buys a new car -- is that the difference between his being able to hold down a job? Nope. But it is for poorer folks . . . for many unemployed folks, transportation turns out to be one of the key variables in whether they stay unemployed, or work.
Bottom line: we have very high taxes on relatively poorer working class folks, and significantly lower taxes on much wealthier folks . . . that's a bad idea.
man, where do you sop up your drivel!
already been shown that his secretary paying a higher rate than he does is simply crafty number counting.
one might add: highly EQUAL societies are even more wildly inefficient than highly unequal, unless of course we're talking feudal monarchies here. simply put, the amount of resources the government must extract from its productive citizens in order to guarantee equal outcomes far outweighs any detriment that "letting people get rich" may...hah...inflict in society. that's not a "right" point of view, that's just plain fking empirical reality!!!
a billionaire...that never becomes a billionaire...cannot employ all those people to give them raises so they can buy all that extra shit.
guaranteed equal outcomes doesnt work, man. not even in an ashram, because there's no such thing as spiritual welfare :lol: you either do the work or you do not, you either achieve results or you do not, you dont have the ability to try 5% effort, give up, and have somebody come award you that which you did not work for anyway!
Acid Trip
08-16-2011, 12:57 PM
GDP (official exchange rate) (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2195):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/field_listing_on.gif (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2195.html#bu) $47.7 billion (2010 est.)
Take a check?
Acid Trip
08-16-2011, 01:03 PM
Deep,
Please explain how raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. I happen to know for a fact that if you taxed all US citizens at 100% of their income we would still be borrowing money with current spending levels. That clearly shows a spending problem, not a taxation problem.
Teh One Who Knocks
08-16-2011, 01:08 PM
I just sent emails to my US legislators. I may get in trouble for it.
Unless you threatened them in some way, I don't think you have anything to worry about ;)
I bet you have spent that in the pub since you were 21
Probably :oops:
Muddy
08-16-2011, 04:07 PM
man, where do you sop up your drivel!
Thats cold man... The guy made a post explaining his take on the situation and you call it drivel? I thought it was pretty well worded and interesting.. :lol:
well worded and interesting have little to do with the veracity thereof :razz:
Acid Trip
08-16-2011, 04:13 PM
well worded and interesting have little to do with the veracity thereof :razz:
For example: If we cover a rattlesnake in fur and give it big floppy rabbit ears does that make the venom any less deadly? No.
Muddy
08-16-2011, 04:13 PM
well worded and interesting have little to do with the veracity thereof :razz:
???
I don't like this class warfare stuff in general.
???
www.dictionary.com :thumbsup:
Deepsepia
08-16-2011, 05:41 PM
man, where do you sop up your drivel!
Your reign of error continues.
I get this from both Buffett and the tax code.
already been shown that his secretary paying a higher rate than he does is simply crafty number counting.
"Crafty number counting"? -- that's what numerate people call "addition, subtraction, multiplication and division". That thing you call "crafty number counting", like place value, is stuff that people who actually want to understand things like a budget and taxation have to do.
See here's the thing: Buffett's income is likely to be mostly long capital gains and dividends. Those are taxed at %15 Federal. He'd have Social Security and Medicare taxes, but they stop at $106K for Social Security-- which may or may not apply to Buffett at this point due to his age), and generally don't apply to unearned income. Folks earning salaries are paying much higher rates -- %35 or so Federal (at the top end) plus their various social insurance taxes. In other words, for folks can do that tricky thing you call "counting" -- folks with ordinary payroll income end up paying much higher marginal rates than a billionaire whose income is almost entirely long capital gains (this would be true of any partner in a private equity firm, anyone with mostly stock based compensation).
guaranteed equal outcomes doesnt work, man.
No one said anything about "guaranteed equal incomes".
We're talking about folks with vastly greater wealth paying at least the same percentage of their income in taxes as the folks who work for them, that's all.
But to understand that, you'd have to delve into that "crafty number counting" that seems to confuse you.
Really, if you can't count, you shouldn't have an opinion about numbers.
Muddy
08-16-2011, 05:57 PM
*beats Fbd's ass*
Your blah blah blah
:lol: so not only is buffet in the "retiree" class, in which he's already even more the exception to the rule, but you very plainly point out the fallacy of the progressive tax code, namely that the higher rate the tax is, the more creative ways people find to make their income less visible to the gov's claws.
see, when you make things unfair,
i.e. attempt to level the playing field, guarantee outcomes more equal than would otherwise be,
as does the progressive mantra drum over and over, excellence is to be punished...
and you dont recognize this as anything more than "lip service" to paying high taxes?
while you're so focused on the overall rates paid, can you tell me the difference between taxes paid by buffet and that of his secretary?
yeah, you cant, because it is overall so astronomically higher that you fail to see that by guaranteeing easy ways to hide from the tax man, you really only wind up punishing those that are on the cusp of rising up.
never seeing how the policies you support keep people down.
muddy....heh...yeah. craft some sort of argument, bro. pig piling is for tools that couldnt even get to the tackle.
and deep, before you get on about math - try including the entirety next time you attempt to do your own - that money that buffet was supposedly taxed 15% on - that has already been taxed before it is being taxed again at the 15% rate - but hey, income's income, right? :roll:
Jezter
08-17-2011, 08:05 AM
Y'all would go mad if you had to live and work in Finland and live by our tax rules. We have suuuper high taxes, but we also have a lot that works better than over there... :-k Fair trade-off for good social security, free education, universal cheap healthcare and Triple A classification. :P
Acid Trip
08-17-2011, 02:01 PM
I'm still waiting. How can we possibly have a taxation problem when every US citizen taxed at 100% of income still wouldn't cover the current budget?
I also find it funny that Buffett talks about coddling the super rich when, according to our tax code, people making 250k are "super rich" and in the top bracket. He lumps himself into a group that makes next to nothing compared to him.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.