-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 112 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
Eminentoes
It’s Easy for You to Say
Warren Buffett is making sure no one ever gets as rich as he became — or as ridiculous.
(Page 2 of 3)
In case Democrat Buffett wouldn’t take Republican Feldstein’s word for it, perhaps The Oracle of Omaha should listen to Christina Romer, Barack Obama’s former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. She wrote, in a paper co-authored with her husband, that “exogenous tax increases have a large, rapid, and highly statistically significant negative effect on output.” And further, “an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly three percent.”
And this is Buffett’s prescription for a healthy economy?
(Note for econ geeks: The Romers also specifically say that tax hikes designed to reduce a deficit are exogenous but add that tax increases implemented for that reason may not have quite as negative an impact as other exogenous tax hikes if they have “expansionary effects through expectations and long-term interest rates, or through confidence.” However, since few investors actually believe that raising tax rates will cause our deficit to go lower, as compared to the impacts of spending reductions, my belief is that tax increases to address the deficit fall fully into the Romers’ exogenous category without requiring further clarification. After all, as Milton Friedman told us, “Politicians will always spend every penny of tax raised and whatever else they can get away with.”)
Now let’s look at the 1997 Clinton tax bill, the key provision of which was to lower the top capital gains rate from 28 percent to 20 percent. The bill also raised the estate tax exemption and established Roth and education IRAs, along with other relatively less important provisions.
Buffett asserts that he “has yet to see anyone shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.” This sounds remarkably like the late New Yorker magazine film critic Pauline Kael whose most famous utterance is often paraphrased as “I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him.”
Warren, your anecdotes are not data. So, instead, let’s look at some data:
According to Heritage’s Foster:
In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.
To be sure, the rise of the Internet had a substantial impact on the growth of venture capital at that time, but the development of the Internet to what we know today was certainly enabled by the willingness of investors to take more risk due to a lower penalty for success, i.e. a lower capital gains tax rate.
It wasn’t just investments which were unleashed; the tax cut caused a tsunami of revenue for the federal government along with increasing economic growth.
Again, J.D. Foster: “According to Treasury’s original estimates, the 1997 tax cut was relatively modest, amounting to just 0.11 percent of GDP in its first year and 0.22 percent of GDP by its fourth year. In 1997, the fourth-year effect would be roughly equivalent to a reduction in the overall tax burden of about $30 billion.”
But, as Peter Ferrara pointed out in a 2010 article (which contains many other examples of capital gains tax cuts yielding increased tax revenue), “in 1997, Congress cut the capital gains tax rate from 28% back down to 20%. Despite this almost 30% cut in the rate, capital gains revenues rose from $62 billion in 1996 to $109 billion in 1999. Revenues over the period 1997 to 2000 increased by 84% over the projections before the tax cut.”
Gross Domestic Product growth during the Clinton years was a full 1% per year higher during the four years after the capital gains tax cut than the four years before it. Real wages increased dramatically, as did the value of the stock market. Moreover, the early part of the Clinton years represented a recovery from recession, during which growth should have been faster than it was. And the later part of the Clinton years would typically have been a period of slightly slowing growth following that recovery; instead growth increased following the capital gains tax cut. In other words, the evidence is strong that the 1993 tax hike hurt the economy and federal tax receipts and the 1997 tax cut helped them. And the evidence is conclusive that the 1993 tax hike raised much less money than its supporters predicted whereas the 1997 tax cut brought in a deluge of money after its detractors and the government’s static modelers predicted it would reduce federal revenue.
In short, Buffett’s prescription is economic snake oil at best, poison at worst. Again, recommending higher taxes is easy for him to say, as he earns more in a month than many Americans will earn in a lifetime.
It’s also worth noting that Buffett, who says his $7 million tax bill in 2010 was unfairly low in percentage terms when compared to others in his office, forgets that his long-term investments were (mostly) made with income on which tax was paid when it was earned. This is of course no different than the rest of us who are fortunate enough to be able to make long-term investments. These investments then allow others to create jobs and grow the economy. It’s remarkable how the left talks about capital gains taxes as if the activities which create capital gains are non-productive at best and a form of exploitative class warfare at worst when they are in fact the highest octane fuel for our economic engine.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (162) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/16/its-easy-for-you-to-say
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Larry| 8.16.11 @ 6:23AM
I'd like to echo Pat Buchanan's response to this nimrod: Hey Warren, why don't you lead by example and write the government a check for $25 billion? I guarantee that it will accepted and you'll be showing that you're not one of those nasty evil rich people.
Mark Shepler| 8.16.11 @ 8:40AM
Buchanan's response was exactly right and properly dismissive.
I remember right after the '94 Republican sweep one of our guys, Dick Armey or Phil Gramm I think, proposing the insertion a new line on the 1040. It would contain an empty field and be entitled "Gifts or Donations to the US Treasury" or some such. It's supposed purpose was to allow any citizen to contribute to the treasury directly any amount they wish no muss, no fuss. It's real purpose was to show up liberal hypocrisy.
Though it never made it onto the form, it served it's political mission perfectly. Libs gave it the Bronx cheer all around and derided it's anticipated defectiveness. They were certain that "nobody" would use it.
They would know. In 25 years in the insurance and Financial services biz in S. Florida I never met one yet who didn't want every deduction, credit and exemption he could claim legitimately and as many as he couldn't if he thought he could get away with it.
Libs make no bones about the need to coerce others and yoke them to their utopian dreams because they know deep down nobody wants them, will vote for them or otherwise sign on voluntarily.
And all they need do to know this is look in a mirror, right Mr. Buffett?
Kurt in S.L.C.| 8.16.11 @ 10:47AM
Back in 1992 even before The Hill-Billys took office it was revealed that Hillary had taken a tax deduction for the donation of her used underwear to the local Goodwill. That pretty well sums up all you need know about your average tax and spend left winger.
Canadian Libertarian| 8.16.11 @ 11:02AM
I would think that Bill could have yielded more tax savings by righting off his used cigars?
Bob K.| 8.16.11 @ 9:13AM
This is all boring and unnecessary.
Just tax ALL income at the same flat rate and be done with it. And I mean ALL income. No deductions-no nuthin'! The only arguments would be over the percentage. If our governments: federal, state, and local, can't operate under this structure; tough nuts!
Pat Spooner| 8.16.11 @ 9:24AM
Absolutely! A single flat rate and the more you make in income, the greater your total tax burden. Everyone should pay income taxes - everyone.
Bill A | 8.16.11 @ 10:20AM
The problem with your idea is its simplicity. It would render useless a goodly number of accountants, tax lawyers and lobbyists . It would also do away with agood deal of wining and dining of elected officials. How many bars and restaurants you have just put out of business!
Have you no compassion?
Occam's Tool| 8.16.11 @ 4:39PM
Maybe, Bill. But I could go to restaurants even more often paying a flat 23% rate without deductions.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 10:15AM
He said a $5 billion check - but what about Buchanan putting HIS money where his mouth is? - Buffet has already given away billions and billions to help charities, hospitals and schools.
Drunken Sailor| 8.16.11 @ 10:27AM
Apples to oranges. Buffet made the claim, let him back it up. Buchanan never said to raise taxes so why should he write a check to put his money where Buffet's mouth is?
And before you go honking Buffets horn you might want to realize that all those contributions Warren gave away also came with a heft tax write off.
Anthony| 8.16.11 @ 10:33AM
Hey moron, millions of us give to charity, thousands more than the Gores, Clintons and the Kerrys, with incomes 10x ours.
You're making our case idiot, we don't need the government to redistribute our money to give to their pet charities and groups, we are capable of making up our our minds to whom we wish to give our money to.
Tax us more and the less we have to give, got it fool?
No you don't, and never will, because you believe our money belongs to the government.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:15PM
Thanks for all the kind words, you're so pleasant - but wrong as usual. You owe your taxes BECAUSE you are an American citizen. You will NEVER not owe taxes to the government - that is in the Constitution, remember that document? You elect representatives to determine how much and what to do with the money - but you still have to pay, like it or not, you will pay.
Since you don't have billions to your name, you won't have to worry about paying much, but no one will ever stop taxes completely.
But I will say this - I doubt you give to charity even close to what you pay in taxes, but taxes are not just to provide the safety net for you and everyone. They pay for the roads, the schools, the airports, the lifeblood of our civilization. Only an idiot would want to change the way we live to something less. But then I'm sure you're convinced that government is bad, bad, bad. The government is not the be all and end all, but isn't the boogie man either. The corporate world isn't a walk in the park either, but it has it's good points.
Life is not black and white and that seems to be the problem. You want simple - too bad, it isn't simple. Get over yourself and grow up.
Conservative View| 8.16.11 @ 9:31PM
Purple guy. Good seeing your comments again. Now, having said that- - -
One simple question. What would you do with the new tax money if you had it? You could either use it to keep government the size that it is, use it to help the poor, aid the down trodden. Or you could use it strictly to pay down the debt.
If you intend to use it to keep government the size that it is, it won't work. You are suffering from a belief in the myth of inexhaustble wealth. American wealth is finite. And we have reached all but the finite end of it. That's why we have the debt that we do.
Now, if you intend to use that money only to pay down the debt, that will in the end bring about a quicker collapse in the size of the government that we have now. We won't be able to continue to fund entitlement programs like aid for houseing, or wick, or any of the hundreds of others. That is likely to bring about riots in the streets.
So, which way do you go? Do you try to maintain the government we have now and watch it collapse from its' own weight, or do you say enough is enough, and hope you can contain the outrage?
I would be really interested to know which way you would jump on this issue.
With respects.
W| 8.16.11 @ 9:46PM
Purp, you are missing the point. Buffett, Gates, and others do donate a lot of money through the foundations they set up and control. Control. They decide how the money is spent. They do not trust the government to spend it. If they really believed that the govenment efficiently spends the money in a worthwhle manner, they would donate the money to the government. Instead, they put the money in the foundations, take a tax deduction, and control how it is spent. You dont have enough money to do this, you send your money to the feds and hope for the best.
Alan Brooks| 8.16.11 @ 7:50PM
Buchanan would have liked it if Germans were rich after 1941, and Russians were slaves.
Alan Brooks| 8.16.11 @ 7:53PM
"Hey moron, millions of us give to charity"
But you don't care about anyone except your own kind; you are charitable to bribe your own consciences.
Jeff Lee| 8.17.11 @ 9:43AM
You must be psychic. How else can you know what everyone others are thinking?
Lawrence Boccardi| 8.16.11 @ 6:28AM
I agree with Buffet. When every pays their "fair share", especially the bottom 50% of wage earners, who now pay no income tax (most get a check), get back to me.
oldfart| 8.16.11 @ 7:10AM
Agreed - 50% of the people in this country have no 'skin' on the table. Perhaps this is why when the country was founded you had to be a land owner to vote. You had a vested interest in how the tax money was spent. If there is no 'skin on the table', and therefore no risk, most people will depand more and more 'freebies' and want the game rigged so they win every time.
Now I don't believe that voting should be restricted that way today - but I do believe there should be more equality in taxiation - such as taxing consumption - not just income.
And to Mr. Buffet - you are a perfect example of 'there is no fool like an old fool'. You have just signed up for the Jimmy Carter brigade.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 10:19AM
And the lie keeps multiplying - it's so easy for them to manipulate you people ... it's sad, really.
Occam's Tool| 8.16.11 @ 4:41PM
I WOULD LIKE TO CHOOSE WHERE TO SEND MY MONEY, NOT YOU, PURPLEGUY. AS AN MD, I CAN EVALUATE MEDICAL CHARITIES MUCH BETTER THAN SHITEHEAD OR HIS APPOINTEES, FOR EXAMPLE. AND YES, I'M SCREAMING. I HOPE IT ANNOYS.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:18PM
That's really too bad - you can't choose for the share that you owe the government. And, you can't choose your share either, so get over it already. That bus left the station a long, long time ago. Like over 230 years ago - the Constitution gives the Congress the power to tax and it's really tough if you don't like it. And, no you don't annoy, it's childish, but not annoying.
W| 8.16.11 @ 9:48PM
Purp, the bus left only for those who do not have the money to set up the foundations like Buffet and Gates.
TrueBlue| 8.16.11 @ 6:43PM
What, manipulate with the truth that 50% of the country pays no taxes and actually recieves free money from the government? That's some good manipulation right there, telling people the truth.
If you do not pay taxes (ie. you get more money from the fed than you put into the system) or you are on government welfare, you should not be able to vote! People will always vote for "free" stuff, but nowhere in the US Constitution (that sadly ignored document these days) or Declaration of Independence does it say "right to somebody else's money and hard work."
DRed| 8.16.11 @ 9:00PM
"What, manipulate with the truth that 50% of the country pays no taxes"
As I keep repeating on this site, this is absolutely untrue. You're talking about only federal income tax, and the actual number of people who don't pay any federal income taxes is lower than 50%.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 10:18AM
That's a big lie promulgated by the people that want you to believe that, because THEY have to pay a lot in taxes - not like you do. Everyone pays FICA tax, Medicare tax, State Taxes, sales taxes, local taxes, etc., so it's a lie that 50% pay no tax - if you work, you pay tax. And, 50% of our people do not work - another big fat lie.
But, believe what you want - the world was flat at on time too.
Drunken Sailor| 8.16.11 @ 10:29AM
And your simple mind is confusing Federal Income tax with all the other tax. 50% pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX, yet they still get a refund. Smells like re-distribution to me.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:23PM
Yes, it is, voted on by Congress, given the power to do so by the U.S. Constitution, and it's too bad if you don't like it. At least the representatives of the U.S. government realize that we are better than dumping the least among us on the ash heap of history - which I assume you would gladly do - as if you could never find yourself sick, old, unemployed or disabled? But I'm sure you'll come back with lazy, good for nothings that represent 50% of the people that pay no Federal tax - it's more like 47%, with a good chunk of those being teenagers and seniors. Wanna tax them too, Sunshine?
Drunken Sailor| 8.17.11 @ 10:19AM
Hey idiot. Please point out just where in the constitution it says that those paying no federal income taxes should get a refund? You can make a good argument that it gives them the power to tax to support our defense and goverment but you will never find where it says re-distribution is a goverment right.
I have no problem paying taxes to support the essential goverment roles. I have a huge problem with those that pay no Income tax getting a refund for something they didn't even contribute to. There are enough goverment handouts for them without that extra treat.
carnot| 8.16.11 @ 1:52PM
they pay those taxes....and then receive a return that nets them out in the positive.
TrueBlue| 8.16.11 @ 6:44PM
Which is equivalent to not paying at all.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:23PM
you seem to know a lot about it ... how do you do it?
Foxfier | 8.20.11 @ 11:01AM
Tax credits. It's kind of common knowledge....
Alan Brooks| 8.16.11 @ 7:55PM
There's no hope for America, Purpleguy- its values are commercialized to the point its religions and art are nothing but business enterprises.
Alan Brooks| 8.16.11 @ 7:58PM
Guys we are so far in debt we will never get out of it. Mark Steyn wrote we are in debt for about $130 trillion.
We are TOAST.
JimP| 8.16.11 @ 6:40AM
I'm just guessing, but it seems to me that Buffett has a guilty conscience for being obscenely wealthy. Why else would he do so much public posturing about the rich paying even more? I conclude he did some very nasty, antisocial things to get those billions since he apparently feels so guilty, or maybe he was just in the right place at the right time and is actually a talentless hack who knows he is completely undeserving of his riches. It is classic socialist hypocrisy to call for sacrifice from the rich while clinging to your own wealth. Some psychologist could probably make a career studying this guy since he's overflowing with contradictions.
Mike D.| 8.16.11 @ 7:28AM
Good take.
Dai Alanye | 8.16.11 @ 10:00AM
If we were to switch from taxing income to taxing wealth Buffett's belief in higher taxes for the rich would evaporate. He manipulates his compensation to minimize income for the express purpose of avoiding taxation. But if the Feds went after his wealth . . .
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 10:24AM
Paranoia anyone? You can't believe as he gets close to the end of his life, he can see what is really important? Or that his Christian upbringing has induced him to be charitable? But, as far as the rich are concerned - he knows a helluva lot more about their life, situation, thoughts and desires than any of us ever will. He just goes against all your right-wing misinformation machine has taught you. too bad, so sad.
Mike D.| 8.16.11 @ 10:40AM
I think Andrew Carnegie went through the same guilt phase as he got older. But at least he put his $$$ where his mouth was.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 3:38PM
So has Buffet - but didn't you get the memo?
Ground Control| 8.16.11 @ 11:07AM
Most monasteries in Europe were built by tyrant kings who, nearing the end of their natural lives, put their ill-gotten fortunes of plunder and tribute in to building their own tributes to God in an act of penitence, a sort of "apology" for their past sins. Not that they gave up ALL of their ill-gotten cash mind you, but it was a gesture of formal repentence to "buy" if you will, God's forgiveness and a one way ticket to Heaven. The closer one of these tyrant Kings, or Dukes, or Princes got to the end, the more "religion" they got. Did such people honestly "see what is really important"? Or perhaps guilt wore on them, guilt over a lifetime of sin and disobedience to God? Put in this perspective, Mr. Buffet's statements appear less economic in nature, and more in the way of self-serving moralizing. After HIS life of riches, he wants no others to "sin" as he did. And he still won't write that big check to the government, but he does want others to pay. I have paid enough for leftists' fake "charity" and vote buying.
It's easy for Buffet and fools like purpleguy to demand more money from others. I have better things to do with my money than to help sleazy Democrat politicians buy votes with it.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:24PM
Like what would you do with your money - buy beer and pizza and a big screen tv? lol
Ground Control| 8.17.11 @ 10:48AM
lol? You like to laugh at your own jokes? I have a lot of things I would like to do with MY money, and none of them include subsidizing Democrats' "Bread and Circuses" vote buying program. Just what business is it of your how I spend my money? Or whether I even KEEP my money or turn it over to the government for them to waste? My, my, you are one obnoxious busy-body. Mind your OWN business and your OWN money and leave my money alone.
carnot| 8.16.11 @ 1:53PM
he can be charitable all he likes! just not with my money. we all know this is simple stage setting for raising taxes ACROSS THE BOARD.
sell your legerdemains some place else.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:27PM
Yes, raise taxes on everyone! The country is in trouble, abundantly proven by the Republicans... but that doesn't mean cut spending alone - revenue must be raised and your taxes must go up - it's patriotic. You can't give your life for your country after a certain age, but you can give your money in taxes. So, Uncle Sam wants YOU - to give your money to save the nation. You say you don't want to save the nation - tough, you have to. Get over it and move on to your next issue.
Conservative View| 8.16.11 @ 9:41PM
Hold the fort there, Purple guy. "revenue must be raised and your taxes must go up - it's patriotic." Here you and I are in total disagreement.
It is patriotic to keep a person on welfare because getting off of it has been made so difficult. Is is patriotic to help a pregnate teen who has no intention of improving her life with WICK, so that her infant will remain in a poverty zone the rest of his life? Is it patriotic to continue to fund a government bloated beyond sustainable size?
Paying taxes is one thing, but you need to take the next step, what are those taxes for? If you do something good, and it produces an evil result, then you have created an evil result how ever well intentioned you might have been. That pavement of hell is too often trod by liberals who want to do good with someone elses money.
So, please, take the next step. Ask yourself. What is the money for?
Aces and Eights| 8.17.11 @ 10:53AM
Hey! Brainless twit! The country is in trouble BECAUSE of TOO HIGH TAXES!!! And, TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT!!! And you want more?!
It is simply astonishing your level of stupidity. Raising tax rates reduces actual revenue. Fact of life. Even the Romans found this out 1600 years ago, albeit a little late. 70+ years of mostly Democrat Congresses have drained the treasury as one generation of Democrats after another wastes trillions of dollars of other people's money solely to buy votes for themselves. You are a selfish, spoiled, egotistical, imbecilic, little brat. Time to grow up and earn your own money, instead of whining and crying to take someone else's.
Nunya| 8.16.11 @ 2:54PM
I read a biography of Mr. Buffett some time ago, he was a fascinating man--back when he was working his butt off about 40 years ago. Now that he's a multi-billionaire, it appears all of his friends at the Washington Post (and elsewhere) have made him feel undeserving of all of his money, so he feels that all the "uber" rich should pay more--except that he's giving most of his away as a tax write off...(hypocrite).
Excellent article, Mr. Kaminski, and good post Jim!
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:27PM
Hogwash
jd| 8.16.11 @ 6:44AM
If the government is the cure-all, as Mr. Buffet seems to believe, why did he give millions to the Bill Gates foundation, a private philanthrophy? Why does he have to wait for Congress to ok raising his taxes? Using the 2008 IRS data, the top 1% pay their federal taxes at the highest rate of 23.3%, instead of the 2.6% that the bottom 50% pay. Regardless of what that Buffoon says, the tax rate is not regressive but progressive. Go ahead, you old geezer, if you want to pay your 36% rate that you claim your office staff pays, then donate your wealth to the government all on your own free will.
Michael Tomlinson| 8.16.11 @ 8:58AM
jd you nailed the hypocritical greedy old bastard.
Pat Spooner| 8.16.11 @ 9:26AM
Buffet made those donations to charitable trusts so that all future income would be tax free!
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 10:27AM
And, we should listen to YOU, oh wise one? Do you even make $100,000/year? Please, stop the hate and listen to some logic. 77% (if that is a correct number, but i doubt it) of a billion is far more than you need to live on, but 98% of 20,000 may be just enough to get by - that's why tax rates are a boondoggle argument. It's not the % you pay that matters - it's whether you can make it on what's left. Death and taxes is all you can count on in life, so give up the no taxes argument - it's a losing proposition.
George S| 8.16.11 @ 12:36PM
Why stop there? If 77 percent of a billion is more than enough to live on, what about 76... 75... 45... 25... ? Of course, if you can get by on 98 percent of 20 grand, then everyone should be taxed 100 percent marginal in excess of $19,600. Then we'd all be rich!
That is, of course, if we agree with the premise that $19,600 is enough. But that figure is twice as much as the average world-wide per capita income of $10,500. So you are wrong -- 20 grand is WAY more than necessary to live on. Just look at Cuba, North Korea, Somalia, Togo, Bangladesh (etc) for unselfish inspiration.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 3:37PM
You want to live like Cuba or Somalia - Really? that's your dream? What a ridiculous comparison ... you missed the point completely .. as usual.
Jim G.| 8.16.11 @ 12:46PM
Sorry, but you view seems to be justify why the govt. shouldn't take what it wants from taxpayers, or pay it. Smells like the U.S.S. R. to me. Strange how people like you bleat the mantra of liberal / socialist ideas, but never go live where they actual hold sway - because it would SUCK! Grow up.
Nunya| 8.16.11 @ 3:00PM
Jim, I think Purp needs to read "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek (though I doubt if he could understand it). It explains why big government always ultimately turns to totalitarianism, if not stopped ahead of time. Purp appears to be (as I believe Stalin called them) a "useful idiot" when it comes to Socialist/Communist ideals of government control of everything.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:29PM
And you don't think Karl Rove and Rush Loudmouth don't say the same about you? If not, you're in denial. You vote against your own economic interests everytime you vote Republican - you're hoodwinked and don't know it... sad.
Nunya| 8.18.11 @ 4:40PM
Sorry Purp, you've got no clue as to what you're talking about, and you're misinformed.
carnot| 8.16.11 @ 1:55PM
that's not the argument...dissembler. aside from tax avoidance...the poster is asserting individuals deciding where/whom to hand their income to is better than having the government make the same decision.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:31PM
Sorry, I'd rather have the Generals decide how to fight a battle, how to equip an army, not you. I'd rather you not clean the streets or build the roads, but the government to do it. Unless you are wealthy, only the government would provide equal roads to everyone. Think about that.
Occam's Tool| 8.16.11 @ 4:48PM
$350K lat year. House worth about $280K---$230K mortgage, 15 years---accelerator plan, so about 11 years or so left. Cars (two) one Impala paid off, one Sierra almost paid off. Credit Cards paid month to month. Retirement savings at about $50 K a year. I lost a lot of money in moving and living in New Zealand.
Purpleguy, your arguments suck. Compulsion hurts, does not help. My kids won't get Government aid for College, which is skyrocketing.
Buffett and I live in different worlds, and he wants my tax to go up. Screw him, and you. I live frugally and work hard. I am on call 144 hours every two weeks, and on site 80 hours. Yes, that means I am available to my hospital 224 hours out of every 336 hours, with 4 weeks off yearly.
Again, shuddup, asshole.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:37PM
If you make 350k/year you either can pay for your kids college or let them handle it themselves (individualism you know). You have no reason to whine and cry, since you are far better off than most. After making 350k/year, how much is enough for you? Good Lord, man, did you read what you wrote? Where is my little violin to play for your woes? Your work hours are your own choice, but I submit you are well paid for your efforts. There are plenty of people that work as hard or harder without the commensurate payscale you have. You are obviously well educated and yet you don't see what your saying? Retirement savings 50k per year? Do you realize you are putting away in 1 year almost the entire amount most Americans can save over a lifetime? Talk about out of touch. I can't feel sorry for your "plight", but I can understand you aren't seeing the forest for the trees. You are so concerned about you, you aren't seeing the suffering around you. God be with you.
W| 8.16.11 @ 9:52PM
"more than you need to live on"
Where do you or the federal government get the authority to decide how much "you need to live on?"
How much do you need to live on?
Darin| 8.16.11 @ 6:52AM
Another liberal hypocrite. He says he's not paying enough taxes, but he still takes all the deductions. Put up or shut up, Warren. Refuse the deductions and send a check to the IRS. Until you (and likeminded people) do that, you have zero credibility.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 10:28AM
He's following the law - did you want him to do otherwise?
Shamus| 8.16.11 @ 11:14AM
He's lobbying for special treatment of his business.
It would be nice if he were less greedy and more interested in supporting the country he claims to love, but this is probably asking too much.
NYMPH| 8.16.11 @ 1:31PM
Fool, there is no law that says you have to take any and all deductions your are legally entitled to. And that is the point. How many tax lawlers does Mr. Buffet employ to find every penny he can squeeze out of deductions? If he were true to his word, he wouldn't take any deductions at all, legal or otherwise and pay the full tax burden on his gross income, not adjusted gross income.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:38PM
But you are to file your tax returns - and you WOULD be a fool not to take all the deductions. Amazing how many people want to protect the Billionaires from tax increases... does that sound like logic?
carnot| 8.16.11 @ 1:56PM
you gotta be kidding me!
that's the best you can do? bahahahaha
Darin| 8.16.11 @ 2:34PM
The tax law ALLOWS him to take deductions, but he is not REQUIRED to do so. The law says he can take the standard deduction and not itemize. I want him to put his money (HIS MONEY, not mine) where his mouth is. I want him to put up or shut up.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:40PM
He's figured out how to get his and yours too ... you're just mad 'cause you haven't figured out how to do it too. And, yet you will protect the billionaires from tax increases ... REally?
LaneyB| 8.16.11 @ 6:59AM
Methinks Warren has reached the age where addled thinking has captured his brain. Time to retire and clip his coupons.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 10:29AM
You doubt what he says, because some idiot writer on this site that works for a paycheck takes potshots at a billionaire? Please ...
Shamus| 8.16.11 @ 11:16AM
Buffett is still plenty savvy about money. He's promoting a scheme that will enrich his insurance company. There's nothing addled about his self promotion.
carnot| 8.16.11 @ 1:57PM
PG defends the billionaire class! How rich!!!
Darin| 8.16.11 @ 2:35PM
Perhaps Purpleguy is an accountant working for Buffett and he fears for his job.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:40PM
Nope, don't even know the man.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:42PM
Got news C - your people here are protecting the billionaires - I think we should tax the hell out of them - they owe this country for what this country gave them - the opportunity to soak us all and collect their fortunes. I'd rather tax them than all of us, wouldn't you?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.16.11 @ 7:04AM
Mr. Buffett likes the tax system because it allows him to sit back and pick off victims of various taxes. A perfect example of that is the "death tax."
While Mr. Buffett gamed the system during the financial crisis and lent Goldman Sachs 5 billion, netting an instant 2 billion in payoffs thanks to government bailouts, Mr. Buffett further benefited from TARP which protected him from losing 10 billion in derivative bets.
However, the Buffett long range plan was to bet on the tax system to make one of his operations solvent.
Here's how his plan worked, and it was based on making billions off of victims of the tax system. That's why Buffett likes it so much:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/19/warren-buffett’s-death-tax-hypocrisy/
The “Oracle of Omaha’s” wealth has come from making wise investments in three different business activities. First, he’s made substantial investments in major corporations that he believes will appreciate; second, he operates a huge casualty and life insurance business which provides massive reserves of cheap capital to support his other two investing activities; and third, he purchases family owned businesses at fire sale prices. The last two practices are directly dependent on the death tax, and it’s unlikely that Mr. Buffett would be the world’s second richest man without it.
The life insurance companies that give Mr. Buffett such a large reserve of capital to draw on are heavily dependent on the death tax. As an industry, life insurance companies make $12 billion a year off of the tax and have fought tooth and nail to keep it in place. What’s the connection? Because life insurance policies are tax free, they have long been the most commonly used loophole to avoid paying the death tax.
A family business owner or farmer takes out a large life insurance policy which his sinks tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into each year. When he finally passes away, the life insurance pays out his policy to his family—tax free. In short, the business owner pays a huge sum of money over a long period to the insurance company to avoid paying an even larger sum of money to the federal government all at once. The only group this tax avoidance scheme really helps is life insurance company owners like Mr. Buffett.
Many business owners loath these payments, which they see as basically protection money, but they often have no choice but to pay up. They’d rather pay the financial thugs in the insurance industry than see their business torched by the much more dangerous thugs at the IRS. The vast sums they send to the insurance industry stunts the growth of their businesses—which is one of the major reasons repealing the death tax would create 240,000 new U.S. jobs every year.
Even as Mr. Buffett’s insurance companies are “protecting” family businesses from the IRS, he is buying companies that are forced to sell themselves to pay the death tax. Mr. Buffett’s ability to buy family businesses at bargain basement prices depends on families being desperate to sell—and nothing produces family businesses desperate to sell quickly like a 55% bill from the IRS on all of the businesses’ assets.
Mr. Buffett has bought numerous companies who were forced to sell because of the death tax including: Dairy Queen, Jordan’s, Justin Industries, Star Furniture, Borsheim, Ben Bridge Jewelers, U.S. Liability, NetJets, R.C. Wiley, Flight Safety and Nebraska Furniture Mart.
Alert1201| 8.16.11 @ 7:25AM
Good stuff comrad Stalin!
This is something a media with an ounce of honesty and integrity would point out: Buffet is for taxes (especially the death tax) because they have made him billions.
Michael Tomlinson| 8.16.11 @ 9:01AM
I call scum like Warren Buffett and George Soros vulture capitalists, because they make their billions off the pain and sorrow of hard working people.
I have an idea let’s pass legislation that targets only rich billionaire Democrats and seize all their wealth. That should make them incredibly happy.
Vic| 8.16.11 @ 11:06PM
Fascist is the correct definition. In describing the economic system of fascist Italy, Wiki says, "In power, the party attempted to form an economic policy that was a "third way" between capitalism and socialism, this was called Corporatism."
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 10:32AM
It must really eat at you that the richest or 2nd richest man in the world has confronted your belief system and shown it to be false. You would do anything different in his position? He's smart, shrewd, fantastic investor and businessman - and a Democratic American. Along with Soros, Gates, Turner, and hundreds more that don't need money anymore - Just can't get past it, can you?
Shamus| 8.16.11 @ 11:22AM
Buffett has a particular opinion. That doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
Aces and Eights| 8.16.11 @ 11:46AM
It must really eat at you that your disoriented ramblings have no audience, either here or elsewhere. You just can't get past the fact that you're a dimwit who's belief system is based on the selfish and self serving ambitions of sleazy politicians, a fool who understands little or nothing about economics or humanity. What a pitiful, little thing you are.
Occam's Tool| 8.16.11 @ 4:50PM
It is not especially virtuous to make your money bankrupting the bank of England, etc.
What is annoying about Soros and the rest is that they wish to pull the drawbridege up. People like Purpleguy nauseate me.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:42PM
Back at ya.... kind words and all .. Did your mother teach you any manners?
Riff Raff| 8.17.11 @ 10:43AM
Obviously, school did not teach you economics. And your manners stink. I've seen your schtick here before.
DTCOFAZ| 8.16.11 @ 5:33PM
Who would have known that Buffett and Soro do not need $$$$$$ anymore. How saint.. how precious...how stupid it sounds...
Perhaps they don't NEED THEIR money to destroy their businesses and their family's wealth, but they sure DO KNOW how to manipulate our taxpayers' money and the so-called "contribution" money to destroy the monitary system and the wealth of the United States.
How noble is that?
TrueBlue| 8.16.11 @ 7:04PM
If they don't need money any more why don't they give all that extra money they earn on a regular basis to the government since they think they need to be taxed more? Until they actually do, of their own free will, what they say the rest of us should be forced to do they can all kiss my rear.
The Death Tax itself is a load of bull to begin with. The money the IRS taxes on inheritence WAS ALREADY TAXED WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY EARNED! There is no reason whatsoever that an inherited business that has been paying its taxes should require the person inheriting it to pay up to 55% of the government determined worth of the company.
RichTex| 8.16.11 @ 10:46AM
Not only has Buffett profited by selling life insurance, the type of life insurance he specializes in, second survivor life policies, are sold primarily as an estate tax planning device. In this type of policy, a married couple takes out the policy which then pays out only after the death of the survivor of the two. Everything left by one spouse to the surviving spouse passes tax free, so the second survivor policy then provides funds for the estate tax payment when the surviving spouse dies. Without an onerous estate tax, there would be little market for such a policy.
Junius| 8.16.11 @ 11:15AM
Glad to see Buffet's real motives called out. He is a twisted greedy bottom feeder who has used a confiscatory government to enrich himself. Another crony of Obama cut in the same cloth as Soros and Immelt of GE. If he is calling for higher taxes than he will somehow make billions. What really astonished me was Ben Stein on the O'Reilly Factor last night, hosted by Laura Ingraham, backing Buffet to the hilt and advocating a 90% tax rate like it was back in the "good ole days of the 1950's. Mr. Stein has gone over to the liberal dark side. Depressing.
Brother John| 8.16.11 @ 7:14AM
"Beware the advice of the wealthy, for they do not seek company."
--Scott Adams
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 10:33AM
Spoken by one who will never be what he seeks to warn of ...
Mike D.| 8.16.11 @ 4:26PM
How do you know what he is or isn't @sshole?
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:43PM
Because I'm brilliant - I read.
J.C.Eaton| 8.17.11 @ 12:27AM
Well, you ARE certainly neither self-effacing nor likable.Sanctimonious, oh yes.
TrueBlue| 8.16.11 @ 7:25PM
Maybe not, but most of us would like the chance to be rich. It's hard to motivate anyone to achieve beyond the norm, or to risk their current livelihood, when that extra effort only means a greater percentage of that effort is taken from you by people that did nothing to earn it.
Not everyone has a ton of money to take that risk with, and with the government constantly threatening to take even more of that money away what are people supposed to use to invest or start their own business? Buffett had the equivalent of $1.2 million in savings before he started his own business and started making serious money. Where does that put the rest of us with increased taxes? The tax the rich line is only a precursor to greater taxes on everyone.
First it was millionaires and billionaires, then it was everyone who made $250k or more... you think it'll stop at that? There is no evidence to support that it will stop, but plenty to say the opposite. I actually have very little issue with people that have a very low income not paying taxes, but I DO have an issue with them recieving a check from the government greater than what they paid into the system. That's money the IRS took from someone else.
Shamus| 8.16.11 @ 7:17AM
Buffett has a business that profits by sheltering money from tax, so you have to wonder whether he's simply talking his book. I'd be curious to see whether he had the same opinion if a tax package took away his tax loopholes.
Furthermore, the math is wrong. Buffett owns over a third of Berkshire Hathaway, so he's actually paying at a 35% rate. He also fails to account for inflation in his calculation. Since Buffett is financially informed, these omissions must be intentional. He is simply trying to bolster his insurance businesses through an increase in tax rates.
Ryan| 8.16.11 @ 8:18AM
Buffett probably actually has little to no personal income, and expenses nearly everything. His income is primarily capital gains, not salary.
Bill| 8.16.11 @ 9:17AM
The capitalist parasite blood-sucker bastard!
Shamus| 8.16.11 @ 9:27AM
Capital gains on stock held since the 1970's would have a big inflationary component. You could buy a car for $3,000 and a house for $20,000 back then. If price levels have tripled and you pay a 15% rate, then your real tax rate is 45%.
martin j smith| 8.16.11 @ 7:24AM
I will not repeat what has already been said about Warren Baby except this: Is it not interesting that it seems that it is the wealthy and those of privledged class that claim the mantle of protector and defender on those BELOW them. And our own Warren is no different. The thing is THEY are secure, but they want to play monopoly with us--they being the monopolizers. As others have said Warren and his friends can chip in ten million each towards reducing our debt without a royal invitation, can they not. Sha5red sacrifice ?
I believe this is a LIE and it is critical that this should be exposed. Many out there believe that if the "rich" pay more, they feel better. What they do not know is they too will pay more and be poor too..
Timothy L. Pennell| 8.16.11 @ 7:30AM
He's a WOLF, in Sheep's clothing. All of you guys have hit the nail on the head.
He can WRITE A CHECK if he feels so bad. I'm sure he's got LOTS OF MONEY, stashed away in SHELTERS and TRUST FUNDS and everywhere, but at the IRS. And, as far as FAIR TAXES? A FLAT TAX, with ZERO Loopholes, is the only way to go. 20%? You tell me. But, EVERYONE PAYS. The people at the bottom will still be getting the things that they NEED, to get bye. Nothing wrong with them chipping in, along the way.
If you ask me? I think that, MAYBE, we should just let GRANDPA ramble on. Methinks that, MAYBE, the "Oracle of Omaha", might just be an IDIOT SAVANT. Someone who can do ONE THING, really good, but can't find his ass, with BOTH HANDS, the rest of the time.
WHY would a Multi-Billionaire Capitalist, vote for a MARXIST/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST?
Hmmmmm?
martin j smith| 8.16.11 @ 7:43AM
I want to add some points about the MSM. How much money do they make and how much will they voluntarily fork over to reduce our debt. Shared sacrifice don't you know ?
I must add this: FOX NEWS and the WSJ both MSM partners both need further scrutiny. They are not always "fair or balanced" as I have siad they are more like "fear and monger" in FOX and in the case of the WSJ simply cronny capitalists.
Intelligent Design| 8.16.11 @ 7:55AM
Wealthy industrialists in Nazi Germany sucked up to Hitler, feeding the beast so they would not be eaten. So now Buffett is sucking up to Obama and his Demo-Socialist comrades for the same reason, thinking he can ward off the federal bureaucrats, such as those at the IRS, the SEC, and Justice.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:45PM
Hahahaha ... and which party is thrilled with Citizens United and no limits on corporate contributions? You people are supporting the very people you hate... and you don't see it. it's hysterical. Wish I was there to see your face when you realize it.
Intelligent Design| 8.16.11 @ 8:00AM
About Hauser's law, mentioned in the article: It shows that the only way to increase tax revenues is to increase GDP, or growth in the private sector. Obama and his fellow socialists are completely ignorant of this fact. They still think, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, that tax revenues can be increased simply by increasing rates, just as they stupidly think that government creates jobs.
Nunya| 8.16.11 @ 5:41PM
I don't think they're ignorant, I think it's being done on purpose.
Cloward and Piven strategy--overwhelm the system.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 9:51PM
Oh, please ... in the '50's the top tax rate was 90% ... so what are you screaming about? You don't know what you're talking about. Federal tax burden is the lowest in over 60 years... so get over it. Government doesn't create jobs, but it can provide the landscape for job creation. And it is supposed to provide some support for the economy when the economy contracts. That's economics, simple. If tax cuts creates jobs, where are they? Bushies tax cuts are still in effect, and after he killed millions of jobs - where are the jobs? Growth, yes, but in what industries? They are all going overseas because our government is paralyzed - not China, not India, not even Brazil and South Korea. Their governments work with industry to promote industries they want to specialize in - why not us? As if the free market made this country great - thats bunk. Government and Industry working together created the greatest booms in history.
G| 8.16.11 @ 8:00AM
Mr. Putin,
Right on!!! Maybe we could consider going back to Clinton era taxes if we went back to Clinton era spending. And you notice Buffet does not set the example by donating his fortune to the government or by sharing the wealth with his shareholders by issuing a dividend. What a hypocrite he is!!!
Ryan| 8.16.11 @ 8:21AM
Buffett's remarks are a perfect example that DC is a corporatist - not a capitalist/free market - environment.
True competition will grow if we cut government spending (where government picks the winners); cut the overall tax rate; and simplify the tax code, removing the loopholes that allow corporatists like Bennett to thrive.
Mike D.| 8.16.11 @ 8:26AM
Hey Warren, go enjoy your wealth, buy yourself a 25 year old wife and......STFU!
Ross Kaminsky | 8.16.11 @ 8:32AM
One quick philosophical question: What's a more noble action, getting wealthy (through hard work and smart investing, not theft or graft) or giving away the money you made?
Some, including me, would argue that the former is more noble and more moral, especially if the giving-away were done out of some sense of guilt or obligation.
For a little more on this, see:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINIO.....index.html
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.16.11 @ 9:54AM
I think what's noble is obvious.
As far as Warren Buffett I think the reason he's doing his tax crusade now is he senses another recession coming and it may be more serious then the first.
He will need the government to bail him out again and make him look good.
In essence he's nothing but a slick thieve just one step ahead of Bernie Madoff because in his case it's legal.
There is no nobility in the Ruling Class.
Ground Control| 8.16.11 @ 11:54AM
What is noble is true charity. Government confiscation and redistribution is neither charity nor noble. The Bible says to give alms to the poor. If one impoverishes oneself, one has little left to give to the poor. Charity is personal and comes from one's heart and one's wealth, not from the IRS. This is why conservatives are more charitable than leftists. Conservatives do well for themselves and their families, thus not being a burden on others, and out of this self sufficiency is borne the giving of alms to the poor. Leftists seek gains for themselves through the power of government and care not a whit for the welfare of the poor. The poor are tools to be used for the leftists' own gain.
Dave| 8.16.11 @ 8:46AM
Of course Buffet thinks this way - he's a liberal.
NedB| 8.16.11 @ 8:47AM
Warren Buffett is a typical guilty white rich liberal.
Mr. Buffett. If you feel guilty, allow me to assuage your guilt. I accept cash, certified checks and Paypal. :)
Mike 3/505| 8.16.11 @ 1:14PM
In God I trust...all others, cash only.
Conservative View| 8.16.11 @ 8:52AM
Does anyone in all of this wonder, or even ask the question, "What the hell is the government going to do with the taxes on the wealthy?"
Now, if 100% of additional tax money gained by taxing the rich went into paying down the National debt, maybe I wouldn't be so against it. But if 100% of additional tax money gained by taxing the rich goes into keeping the government at the size it is, or even making it bigger, then I have a real problem with more taxes on the rich.
Our government has reached a size that is unstainable. The myth of inexhaustable wealth has got to be exploded. We simply can't go on with a government this large, this expensive. It has to go the way of G. Washington's cherry tree.
So, I'm in favor of taxing the rich more, if and only if absolutely every dime of it goes into paying down the debt. Fat chance that will happen with our professional politicians.
Petronius| 8.16.11 @ 12:37PM
A. Make the economic illiterates feel better.
George S| 8.16.11 @ 12:47PM
Catch-22. National debts cannot exist unless there are lenders and lenders cannot exist unless there is excess capital accumulated to invest. Excess capital cannot exist unless there are industrious people and industrious people cannot exist in 100 percent taxation.
RT| 8.16.11 @ 8:54AM
As noted, nothing's stopping this communist from giving his *own* money to the federal government; there's even a provision in the tax code that specifically addresses this. But no, apparently that won't do for the Nebraskan corn cob; what he wants is *other* people contributing *their* money, which, of course goes to his liberal pet causes by default. So, when you boil it all down what he wants is more money, the same as he has his entire life. Fifty billion apparently isn't enough for him. I hope he enjoys these treasures he's stored up here on earth during the time he has left; he shows no sign of having stored up any in Heaven.
Anthony| 8.16.11 @ 8:54AM
Screw taxing income over $1M, let's grab the accumulated earns of Buffett and other uber-rich leftists and give them a taste of their own leftist bullcrap.
Grab $40 B of this leftist imp's stash'o cash and watch this little porker squeal.
Bill| 8.16.11 @ 9:15AM
And put the intellectuals to work sweeping the streets!
Power to the people!
Hillel| 8.16.11 @ 9:01AM
Licoln is supposed to say that G-d must love the poor--He made so many of them. That of course is also the priciple behind Walmart etc. Low margins but quick turn over. A MODEST PROPOSAL Tax the poor. everybody pays taxes!
We already do this with tobacco and alcohol taxes plus lotteries. Why not surcharges on all grants?
Sharia and Talmudic law both state that no one is exempt from giving charity "Zagat" in Islam. This would raise more money than a "Millionaire's"tax as there are not enough millonaires. This might encourage everyone to ask for reduced government spending.
Michael Tomlinson| 8.16.11 @ 9:02AM
Republicans should begin demanding Democrats all file Standard 1040 tax forms (i.e., no itemizing and only standard deductions) then their taxes would go up just like they want without hurting anyone else.
It's so simple even a caveman can understand it.
Bob in Western NY| 8.16.11 @ 9:03AM
It seems the larger point is "what would Buffett do with his money if not given to the government?" Most likely he would invest it in businesses. And, knowing Buffett, he would do it in the most productive way he can imagine. That is a better use of the money.
Alternately, Buffett can (1) give to charity or (2) give to the Federal government or (3) waste it. Number 2 & 3 are identical. Number 1 raises another point, to wit: is the reason Buffett's paying so little because he gives so much to charity? Which prompts another question: if Buffett wants to use his own taxes as an example, why doesn't he release his taxes so we can have an intelligent discussion on the issue? Without Buffett releasing his own taxes for this debate, he wins for lack of information. Except, he doesn't win with me, because we all know Buffett will invest the money not paid in taxes more effectively than the government.
Bill| 8.16.11 @ 9:10AM
Only a person who is profoundly ignorant of the basis of American government, i.e., the Constitution, would advocate for taxing the rich more than the rest of us.
First of all, there is the 14th Amendment issue of equal protection of the law.
Second, there is the more fundamental idea that it is wrong to build a system that values private property and the freedom to accumulate wealth, then punishes it by singling it out for additional taxation. In my view, that is un-American.
Is it patriotic to pay taxes? Well, it's not UN-patriotic. But the American Revolution started in part as a revolt against taxation without representation. Why do we remove the ability of the rich to finance politicos who will fight for them by laws like McCain-Feingold, then say they are unpatriotic if they don't agree to pay more in taxes than the rest of us? Particularly where half of the people in the country don't pay taxes at all? Not that it isn't a good idea that half of the country's people don't have to pay taxes - I'm all for that. But it's not OK to require the wealthy to take up the slack; that's just unfair and unequal.
Bill| 8.16.11 @ 9:14AM
If Warren Buffet wants to pay more in taxes, nothing stops him from adding some more to the amount he sends in to the IRS.
What he wants is for others to pay more taxes. That's their business, just like deciding to kick in more of Mr. Buffet's money to the IRS is HIS business. It's easy to solve the debt crisis on other peoples' money.
LMajito| 8.16.11 @ 9:36AM
I say let's follow this senile guy lead...lets tax wealth of the billionaires not income (they have lawyers that make sure income will be exempt of tax laws)...so anybody with over 1 billion in wealth, they'll have to pay 30% of that wealth in taxes...i bet his mouth will shut in a second...
and also those foundations, must pay 10% in taxes...
will like to see how many of these clowns still be ok with their piece of the action...
DWSWesVirginny| 8.16.11 @ 9:44AM
Buffett says "has yet to see anyone shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain." He fails to mention that what is deemed a sensible investment will be affected by tax rates. I have yet to hear of anybody who--all things equal--will not choose the investment that is taxed less over the one that is taxed more. I guess you could call the latter the least sensible of the two?
Petronius| 8.16.11 @ 9:50AM
Buffett has morphed into the Sam Donaldson of the corporate set. Who should have money and the disbursal of it must be put before him for approval? Heaven forbid Joe Sixpack spending what remains in his checking account after taxes on himself. And though this situation is gratifying to him, it's not what he is about. He loves Obama because both of them don't want any economic growth they do not control. Apple and Microsoft get a pass because Gates and Jobs are also members of their club. This bunch of despots have erected themselves as architects of society, and they made it very plain from day 1 that they will bring ruin upon all who get in their way. Buffett is Big Brother's rich uncle. Taking Freedom from Real Americans through economic terrorism like peonage and racketeering are nothing new. But having Uncle Sam do it by taxation and over regulation now makes it not only acceptable, but laudable, because we who are afflicted by their tyranny refuse to submit. Bottom line: any person who doesn't embrace all the PC crap dished out by the leftist pharisees will not be allowed to hold a job. Or if you're a one man band, you'll never be granted licenses to operate. So what to do? Buy a B share in Berkshire Hathaway and overrun the annual meeting. Get in both Buffett's faces. Ask him why he does not want Americans to be Free.
SPINNY| 8.16.11 @ 9:59AM
Warren is the most successful con merchant to have ever lived. He's a nasty blowhard, pure and simple. Now just watch, when this old crank "kicks the bucket" (the sooner the better in my opinion), Berkshire will be exposed for the "house of cards" it really is. Once this creep dies, I'm gonna short the sh!t out of Berkshire. It will be a great trade!
Now...GO CHANGE YOUR DIAPER MR. BUFFETT and STOP TORMENTING THE REST OF US.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 10:06AM
What hogwash, loaded with misleading statistics, but hogwash nonetheless.
"According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden." - Exactly - when faced with higher taxes, the wealthy find ways to avoid it - by investing in risky ventures and increasing the capital put to work CREATING JOBS, and if they make money, great, if not, they have their tax avoidances. It's a fallacy that people don't work, rich or otherwise, because of the tax burden. They may not like taxes, who does, but they aren't going to give up 75% of the income gained by working (or investing) to avoid paying 25% or less of their income in taxes. What moron would do that? It just doesn't make sense, no matter how many stats are thrown in the pile. Hogwash to brainwash is all this article is. Listen to the Billionaire - I'd say he knows more about making money than anyone writing for or reading this site.
LMajito| 8.16.11 @ 10:58AM
yeah risky ventures in other countries not the USA so their income is out of touch like the GE case where they still earned a net of several billions and paid no taxes...and buffet he's been scouting china for his next factories and investments...get your facts straight before going a calling folks morons...you forget one little item that factors in all of these decisions...greed and the wealthy's greed knows no bounds...that's why they loved gecko's lines in the first wall st movie...the second, now that was another story and they did not like it that much...
lastly, don't forget that only income gets taxed not wealth...so the gassbag from omaha can talk from both sides of his mouth but he knows his billions are out of touch...his income, now that's another story...
Shamus| 8.16.11 @ 11:31AM
When faced with higher taxes, the wealthy do indeed find ways to avoid it, primarily by moving resources to other countries. If you don't like the United States and think that resources should be sent elsewhere, then punitive tax rates are your for you.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 3:24PM
You sound like a progressive... hmmmm ... even though the US has one of the lowest tax burdens in the industrialized world.
George S| 8.16.11 @ 1:07PM
Please. Tax avoidance strategies and shelters create jobs? For international bankers, absolutely. China and Mexico? Their economies have our regulatory and tax policies to thank.
On one hand, you castigate the rich for hogging income and not paying taxes. On the other hand, you credit them for their prowess. On the other hand (I wish I had more hands) the Warren Buffets would not be rich if they didn't have one critical skill -- the ability (and means) to influence Congress with rent seeking. Lots of rich folks become that way by having Uncle Sam be their enforcer, unfairly stomping over the free market by punishing competitors. Ask Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Joe Kennedy and John D. Rockefeller.
Warren Buffet is not afraid of taxes. He is, however, terrified of an even paying field. There's your perspective.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 3:28PM
Oh, my, what a wonderful rat hole you went down ... espousing regulation (that halted the abuses of the workers of the Carnegie's, Ford's, etc.) .. the corporate world has too much influence in Congress (Citizens United Supreme Court case anyone?) which progressives don't like either. That was an interesting piece of logic - do you know what side you're on?
Occam's Tool| 8.16.11 @ 4:53PM
When the taxes hit too high people leave. Why do you think Harrison wrote Taxman, dumbbell?
Glen H| 8.16.11 @ 10:30AM
Hey, I'm with Ann Coulter. Tax all billionaires at 100% of their wealth over $1 billion. They are all liberal Democrats, anyway.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 3:28PM
Okay by me ... they can't take it with them anyway.
Eduardo| 8.16.11 @ 11:49AM
Commenting from Omaha. I know a little about Buffett. For one thing, I live 1 block from him in a 1920's neighborhood on the "south side of Dodge street". That means he and I live on the lesser side of town albeit a decent area. Funny thing, while I've walked around the neighborhood for 20+ years, there is never a sign of him and very little sign of life. Does he really live there or is this home a prop to embellish his 'aw shucks" ordinary guy routine? Buffett basically has a 180 degree opposite view of everthing I believe, be it taxes, legalized gambling, whatever. Can't think of one point on which we agree. I am frankly ashamed that he and the despicable democrat senator nelson come form my state. Please accept my apologies, everyone.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 3:29PM
No apology necessary - just shows you that you can be rich and still from Nebraska...
1ConservativeUSA| 8.16.11 @ 11:51AM
Great idea from Mark Levin, on last night's show:
OK, so Buffet wants to pay more tax. Let him. If and when he sends in voluntary tax contributions, Congress will reduce spending by 10 times the amount, thereby agreeing to the liberals' "balanced approach" of spending cuts and tax revenue.
If Buffet sends in $20 billion, we cut gov't spending by $200 billion! Mr. Levin, your genius continues to amaze me.
My commentary: This offer is also open to Obama, Tom Hanks, Bill Gates' father and any other nut job who believes that "taxing the rich" will solve the real problem of profligate government spending.
Slacker| 8.16.11 @ 12:06PM
There is no reason to assume old man Buffett’s speaks for majority of the super rich. Some will agree with him, others will throw temper tantrums and move elsewhere. There is no reason to believe they will simply accept higher taxes. They have other options. The reason the super rich get coddled is we need them more than they need us.
Purpleguy| 8.16.11 @ 3:32PM
That's where you're wrong - without the mass of the middle class, they would have a very different world to enjoy. Spending by millions has paved the roads, created shopping districts, hospitals, schools, stadiums, cities, basically civilization. When the rich have it all, they have very little to enjoy ... and they know it. You just don't ...
Steven Jay| 8.16.11 @ 1:02PM
I think that Mr. Buffett is an example which shows that successfull people don't necessarily know everything or think of everything just because they are rich. I personally don't go along with Pat Buchanan's idea of suggesting that Buffett simply send a check to the U.S. government if he feels that he has reached the point at which he has 'made enough money'. I do wish that Mr. Buffett would stop and consider his options. Here are a couple. * Promote higher taxes so that the government can subsidize Chevy Volt production, an inefficient car that no lower income family would purchase under normal circumstances, or, channel some of your money to a cancer ward in a hospital to treat patients who can not afford treatment. * Promote higher taxes so that the government can subsidize windmills that are not likely to provide efficient energy to anyone, or, channel some of your riches to needy people of your choosing, in this country or abroad, that would be able to benefit with a minimum of overhead because it would be managed by you or someone of your choosing, not some beauracrats looking for votes. I could name more, there are endless expamples, but I'm sure that Mr. Buffett will never see this anyway. I just pray that someone who is articulate and with vision will have the oportunity to challenge the Warren Buffett's and Barak Obama's of the world and help them to see the error of their ways.
Samuel af Ugglas| 8.16.11 @ 1:30PM
O, Please mr. Buffet donate as many dollars you find suitable to make do for taxes Obama can spend, just don´t forget to tell us how many!
William Wallace| 8.16.11 @ 1:35PM
> it's about punishing the rich. An increase in tax revenues to the federal coffers would be a happy, unintended consequence.
PJ| 8.16.11 @ 2:12PM
When are these very old, lefty numb nuts going to meet their Maker?
Ted left us. I'm still waiting for Warren, George, & Jimmy to do the same.
gearjammer| 8.16.11 @ 4:02PM
I wish Paul Harvey could see what his little Frankenstein has become. Buffet today is more about power. I guess once he really did make money by investing in up and coming companies with fresh industrious ideas. Now he is a crony capitalist and needs the tax dollars of hardworking people mandated into his government approved investments.
Dixie Pixie| 8.16.11 @ 4:29PM
The Anti-Trust laws were specificity written to stop people like Warren Buffett from exploiting our Political/Economic system.
The reason he has not been hit with anti-trust lawsuits is he has sought the protection of the Democratic Party.
In return Warren Buffett does the dirty-work for the Democratic Party, in this case by comfirming Obama's propaganda that the Rich need to pay more.
Thereby giving political cover so the Democratic Party can take more from the public and spend it on themselves.
If the Republicans in Congress had any sense, they would start anti-trust investigations in order to grant Warren Buffett's implied wish of poverty.
This can be done by finding him guilty of violations of antitrust law however minor thus separating him from his companies and the wealth they generate for him.
In a organization as complex as Berkshire Hathaway, more that a few federal violations could be found thus granting Buffett the state of spiritual grace found in the monastical poverty inherent in the Federal Maximum Security Prison System.
Think of it as saving Warren Buffett's soul from the corruption of Great Wealth through the prison system.
Kent Lyon| 8.16.11 @ 4:33PM
Warren Buffett loves to get a good deal. His main goal is to reduce profitable companies to penury so he can buy them up for pennies on the dollar and get rich off them. Thus, he would be all in favor of hurting the economy as much as possible. That would explain his avid support for Barack Obama, as well as his view that taxes should be raised. Higher taxes will kill a lot of businesses, which Buffett can then buy for a song. He's pretty much on a par with Soros, who started his career getting his fellow Jews in Hungary gassed for his fun and profit, with no regrets. Buffett seems to have the same view regarding killing the American economy. Yes, he's shrewd. So shrewd, he's willing to reduce the entire nation to poverty for his financial benefit.
POST American| 8.16.11 @ 10:28PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
"CALM-PET---IT---shun is a sin."
-John D. Rock--F--L--O 1910
(shortly after his FINAL public scandal
--the Ludlow Massacre)
Translation for we, the ITs :
"NOW that I've won, there'll be NO MORE
competition."
--------------HUAC/NUREMBERG 2012------------
michigander_sandusky| 8.16.11 @ 11:47PM
I already knew money cannot buy you love, but I would like to thank Mr. Buffett for teaching us money also cannot buy you wisdom.
bigrob| 8.17.11 @ 9:30AM
The most telling particle of information in the whole article is that the bottom 50% only receive 13% of the income. That is why we are declining as a nation.
thebardofmurdock | 8.17.11 @ 11:45PM
A Democrat or Hypocrite?
A Democrat or hypocrite?
I get the two confused.
In Warren Buffett’s case I’d say
The two of them have fused.
When Buffett wrote his little piece,
He had one goal in mind:
Providing cover for the folks
With whom he’s intertwined.
For he’s connected at the hip
To President Barack;
And he’s now propping Barry up
Just like a penny stock.
I think the law is fairly clear:
The Oracle is free
To send as much as he would like
To Washington, D.C.
So if he thinks his tax unfair
Or thinks his rates too low,
Why has he not, for many years,
Paid what he ought to owe?
A hypocrite calls other men
To do what he won’t do.
A Democrat and hypocrite
Would legislate it too.
supra | 10.18.11 @ 1:45AM
Hello!I am glad to here, Good Site! Thanks you!