-
The Politicization Crusade
May 8, 2013 | 56 comments
-
Deceiver in Chief
March 20, 2013 | 204 comments
-
Chronicle of Liberal Disasters
February 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
President Obama’s Minimum Wage Delusion
February 14, 2013 | 203 comments
-
The Democrats’ Rough Re-entry Into Reality
October 19, 2012 | 148 comments
A Further Perspective
Warren Buffett’s Empty Words
They ring especially hollow at tax preparation time.
It’s the time of year when our tax preparers tell us how much we owe the government. Here’s what might be a revelation to any high-income liberal who thinks his or her tax rate is too low — the amount of taxes your CPA tells you that you owe is a minimum not a maximum.
Warren Buffett is President Obama’s favorite tax policy spokesman. It’s not, however, because of Mr. Buffet’s actions. It’s only because of his words. Like a broken record, the President has used Buffett’s words time and again as his primary argument for raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” and on “the most fortunate among us.” Obama claims, “That’s not class warfare, that’s just common sense.” In a recent fund raising letter the President asked, “Do you think it is fair that Warren Buffett’s secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett? I don’t and neither does Mr. Buffett.”
In an interview with Christiane Amanpour Buffett said, “I think people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it.” In testimony before Congress Mr. Buffett said, “The rich are coddled by Congress as if they were spotted owls or some other endangered species.”
Buffett’s specific indictment of the tax system is that he, a billionaire with an annual income in the millions, pays a lower tax rate (about 17 percent) than the 20 people in his office who pay, according to Buffett, an average rate of 36 percent. (The 36 percent number makes me wonder about his credibility.)
Buffett apparently has not the slightest clue as to how much of a phony he’s proving himself to be and the chasm between his words and deeds. In regard to Buffett’s famous protestations, New Jersey governor Chris Christie recently made the following recommendation:
He should just write a check and just shut up. Really. And just contribute. I’m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check. Go ahead and write it.
Governor Christie, of course, has it exactly right.
President Obama claims that he is not against wealth, per se. He says, however, “After some point, you’ve got enough.” Presumably he thinks Buffett is well beyond that point. Consequently, if Buffett paid two or three times the tax he’s now paying, it would be with money he doesn’t really “need.” If Obama’s right, Buffett wouldn’t feel a thing.
If you think you’re not paying sufficient taxes, there’s something you can easily do about it. This is a problem that readily lends itself to individual direct action. Beyond the legal minimum we’re free to determine our own tax brackets. If anyone actually believed that the government’s having more money would benefit society then he might happily pay more taxes.
Have you ever heard of anyone who protests that his tax rate is too low volunteering to pay more? Why not? Is there any clearer example of hypocrisy?
Actions speak louder than words. Judging from their actions, liberals have the same opinion as everyone else — government is the least effective way to get anything done. Even liberals recognize that they as individuals can spend or invest their own money or contribute it to private charities with vastly better results than sending it to Washington, D.C. Have you ever read an obituary that ended with, “In lieu of flowers, please send a contribution to the federal government?”
One easy way to raise your own taxes is by opting out of some of your deductions. How often does that happen?
It would be interesting to know what Warren Buffet would say to the question of why he doesn’t just voluntarily pay more taxes?
Mr. Buffett, why do you want other people to be forced to do something you are unwilling to do voluntarily? Talk is cheap. Put your money where your mouth is. Buffett is apparently unaware that he is making it crystal clear he is a complete phony. If he voluntarily paid more taxes he could quickly go from being a phony to being an inspiration. Show some leadership. Go from having no credibility to having tons of it. Why is it necessary to wait until your fellow millionaires and billionaires are forced to join you?
Buffet could argue that one taxpayer can’t make that much difference. Whether or not that’s true, however, isn’t contingent on what other taxpayers are doing. As Milton Friedman wrote in Free to Choose, “This contention that compulsion would change matters is wrong — even if everyone else did the same, his specific contribution… would still be a drop in the ocean. His individual contribution would still be just as large if he were the only contributor as if he were one of many.”
About the Author
Ron Ross Ph.D. is an economist who lives in Arcata, California. He is the author of The Unbeatable Market. Reach him at rossecon@gmail.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (100) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ron Ross
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/22/warren-buffetts-empty-words
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
Gary B| 3.22.12 @ 6:36AM
"It's been said that a liberal doesn't care what you do so long as it's compulsory."
I hadn't heard this before, but it sure has a ring of truth to it. Put another way, liberals just can't stand their neighbors' freedom. They seem so willing to sacrifice their own freedom, as long as their neighbors are compelled to do the same.
What can we conclude from this self-destructive behavior? I have no answer so I go along with Michael Savage's diagnosis: Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Scribonius Curio| 3.22.12 @ 7:33AM
What's no compulsory is forbidden.
Daveevad1| 3.22.12 @ 11:48AM
And what happens in the privacy of one's bedroom is on someone else's nickel.
Gary B| 3.22.12 @ 6:39AM
Oh, and specific to Buffett, he's proven himself to be another in a long line of a self-important blow hards who, like The Muslim and every other wealthy liberal, believe we should do as they say, not as they do.
John Balzer| 3.22.12 @ 6:43AM
Christie has plenty of work to do. He needs to quash the horrible Prudential theft of tax credits they don't deserve. The Pru is cheating NJ taxpayers and only Christie can fix it.
cali| 3.22.12 @ 7:15AM
Buffett is no different than Soros; he just uses a more calm and, quiet demeaner to achieve what Soros wants to achieve.
Buffett should also pay what he owes the IRS - 200+ million dollars in back taxes - rather than continue to litigate in court to avoid what he owes for the past 6+ years.
Naturally, he masquerades as the 'tax' begger for more, while he doesn't pay what he owes.
Old Soldier| 3.22.12 @ 7:32AM
Berkshire Hathaway owes over a $billion in back taxes.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideC...../id/409520
SUBVET| 3.22.12 @ 11:32AM
Ya, they are building a new NETJET terminal at the Van Nuys Airport with that $$$$.
markenoff| 3.23.12 @ 1:14AM
That money would be better spent as part of a government stimulus plan.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.22.12 @ 8:00AM
Liberals (read socialist) always find ways to extort money seeking economic rents from government. That is why they want it funded to the maximum. Conservatives believe in the markets to earn their money "the old fashion way." That is why they oppose high taxation. It is a simple cost benefit analysis.
Buffet bailed out GS for $5B, received his money back in a year with a 10% dividend. He invested in BOA another $5B, and the 700M warrants bought on the cheap could make his GS profit look like chump change.
He loves inheritance taxes but fails to mention that he owns a few major life insurance positions. Life insurance is not taxable, so when the death tax increases, life insurance ROI skyrockets making Warren a very rich boy.
He is a Rober Baron!
Gary B| 3.22.12 @ 10:42AM
Also, inheritance taxes enable him to purchase companies from the heirs of the founder, since the IRS wants their cash quickly. I can only imagine how those negotiations go.
2Anglico| 3.22.12 @ 12:32PM
He also owns insurance companies that sell life insurance to people who plan ahead to pay death taxes with discounted dollars. He's got both ends covered. He BENEFITS from tax policy.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.22.12 @ 1:06PM
Interesting. When you say discounted dollars, do you mean that they grow and equal more than the total contributions? I am not sure I am tracking with you, and since I made this point a few times, I am curious.
Big Red One| 3.22.12 @ 5:47PM
Thru Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts. The trust buys the insurance and is beneficiary. At death, the trust buys assets from the estate, providing the liquidity to pay the tax. The life insurance proceeds are not included in the estate. Example: $100,000 in premiums may buy $2 mil in benefit = discounted dollars.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.22.12 @ 9:26AM
More crony capitalism to benefit Buffet? Was Keystone also disfavored by the "One" since his buddy is invested up to his eyeballs in choo-choo trains: http://www.americanthinker.com.....uffet.html
Ty Schroeder| 3.22.12 @ 9:05PM
+1 Cali and i will take it further. He won't run for political office in nebraska, even though the Dems beg him to for 1 reason. He would be exposed for the fraud he truly is.
skedaddle| 3.23.12 @ 4:10PM
It's not just the IRS that Buffett owes. http://www.kmbc.com/news/20056559/detail.html
Thomas| 3.22.12 @ 7:43AM
Absolute rubbish. 1) Everyone wants to pay as little tax personally as possible - that's why taxes are compulsory. Like the rest of us he can play the game while agreeing the rules of the game should be changed. Taking this argument in reverse, why don't we all agree that none of us pay any taxes whatsoever then? 2) Please tell me how America is to resolve its national debt position while simultaneously vastly lowering taxes. You'll cut state services enormously I presume. Of course, who needs education, defence, infrastructure etc.? 3) I heard a joke here in the U.K. that in America, a tiny minority rips off the vast majority while half this majority cheers them on. It's funny because it's true.
Moe Blotz| 3.22.12 @ 8:20AM
The U.k. itself is a joke, awash in political correctness and stuck in Chamberlain syndrome. A lesson for you chalkie: our US history shows that when tax RATES are lowered, economic activity accelerates and tax REVENUE to the treasury increases. Deficits occur when government spending increases. I suggest you read a bit of Hyek, Bastiat, Friedman, de Toqueville and others rather than sit there in your London fog and take pot shots at the colonials.
Thomas| 3.22.12 @ 8:55AM
1) Yes, the U.K. does have a problem with political correctness being taken "too far", or rather misinterpreted by the plenty of idiots here in the U.K. 2) Where is this evidence you cite re: the effect of tax rates on the economy? 3) I do not live in London and it isn't at present foggy. Nor do I view you as a "colonial". I do not know what "chalkie" means and I have no idea how the U.K. is "stuck in Chamberlain syndrome".
richard ryan| 3.22.12 @ 9:40AM
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference
If you disagree with Mr. Kennedy's assertion, feel free to look at the historical FACTS. The Heritage Foundation has collected the revenue data before and after Reagan's tax cuts, Bush's tax cuts, etc. These data come from the OMB, a federal agency that keeps records of this stuff. Read about revenues before and after Coolidge made HUGE cuts to the individual tax rates. Then follow up on Kennedy in the 60's, Reagan in the 80's, and most recently GW Bush. Yes, his tax cuts increased revenues also.
The real answer to why this happens lies more in the study of human behavior than economics. Democrats believe that in the "static" theory of human behavior. Tax rates up, revenue up. Not true at all.
Peter Ferrara, on this website, also lays out the facts on taxes and revenue very well.
cheers mate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
richard ryan| 3.22.12 @ 9:46AM
PS: when Obama was presented with the data about capital gains taxation and revenue in 2008, he had no answer. Just mumbled something about "in the interest of fairness" I would increase these rates. I'm paraphrasing here.
The only argument liberals have against the FACTS on taxes and revenue is this: "Well, revenue as a percentage of GDP actually went down after the tax cuts." Exactly. The economic growth resulting from tax reduction makes the GDP bigger. That's the whole point here.
Thomas| 3.22.12 @ 10:07AM
1) Following Kennedy, why worry about the deficit at all? But of course we should - we can't leave public sector spending out of the equation. 2) I'm interested to see the "FACTS" though - could you please link exactly to where the info. you cite can be found?
Moe Blotz| 3.22.12 @ 11:26AM
You are the first of Her Majesty's subjects who knows less about your former colonies than I do about Great Britain. Mr.Ryan gave the location for the facts, so here it is again: HERITAGE FOUNDATION. John Hancock could read that one without his spectacles. If you do not know who Chalkie or Neville Chamberlain were, I doubt that you are British.
Thomas| 3.22.12 @ 2:46PM
1) Yes Moe but it would be helpful to know what exactly Richard was building his claim upon - and he has helpfully obliged below. Sorry you don't agree on this. 2) I have no idea what "chalkie" means. I do know who Chamberlain is but do not understand how the U.K. is "stuck in Chamberlain syndrome".
richard ryan| 3.22.12 @ 11:48AM
http://www.heritage.org/budget.....t-revenues
This chart may look different than the ones on the .gov websites because, as I mentioned earlier, government types like to look at revenue as a percentage of GDP. As the economy (GPD) grows, absolute revenues rise with it.
You will notice that Reagan's massive tax cuts, as Kennedy asserted in 1962, did not result in revenue decreases. In fact, they lead to the largest and most sustained economic boom in world history. Government revenues skyrocket with this. More people lifted out of poverty in world history.
Also note that GW Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 lead to revenue increases as well. As the Heritage site points out, SPENDING has been the problem, not revenues.
These data come from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). They are well supported, and the numbers are not well challenged anywhere that I can see. The instances where the OMB and CBO are always way off are in their predictions for the future. They tend to ignore Art Laffer's theories on taxation and human behavior. He and Stephen Moore have written a great book on these subjects called "The end of Prosperity."
Thomas| 3.22.12 @ 2:50PM
In fairness Richard it just looks to me like tax revenues rose until G.W. Bush got in! I agree with a lot of what you are saying though!
Mike Hawk| 3.22.12 @ 6:06PM
It is obvious you have zero education in even rudimentary economics and probably less in math.
Thomas| 3.22.12 @ 7:31PM
Actually Mike, I do actually know a little bit about both economics and maths. I can even understand a graph! But thanks for your constructive comment.
skip| 3.22.12 @ 10:10PM
Thomas,
True or false:
Bush cut taxes in 2001
Bush cut taxes in 2002
Bush cut taxes in 2003
Federal revenue in 2003 was $1.782314 trillion
Federal revenue in 2007 was $2.567985 trillion
Federal revenue in 2007 increased more than 44% over federal revenue in 2003
Nancy in NC| 3.22.12 @ 8:25AM
How amusing someone from the UK would attempt to give us a lesson on taxes. I've been to the UK and average Americans have a much better life. I've been to your hospitals and seen how well your socialized medicine doesn't work. I doubt it's changed all that much in ten years, except you have more radical Muslims, and just as many people on the dole. Your socialized system has effectively killed the work ethic...why work yourself to death when your neighbor sucks up all the freebies?
Our education system has progressively worsened since taken over by the Federal government; it should be returned to the states and counties where it rightly belongs. We need cuts in defenSe as well...to all those Federal contractors that are ripping us off...not the troops. What we really need is to shrink the size of the Federal government, ridding ourselves of worthless bureaucrats that are stealing us blind and trying to control every aspect of our lives through regulation and rules. An administrative state is not what we need, except less of it. And throw in welfare reform and we might see some improvement. Raising taxes (or lowering taxes) will not solve all our problems.
Thomas| 3.22.12 @ 8:43AM
Actually life expectancy is higher in the U.K. (as it is in a number of countries with "socialised medicine") than in the U.S. If the state providing basic medical care is "socialism" then surely state education, defence and infrastructure are too?
Michael Z. Williamson | 3.22.12 @ 9:26PM
It's higher by a few months out of 80 years. Diet and exercise are more relevant to that. Our obesity rate is 50% higher than the UK's.
Now, as a former Brit who had NHS, then Canadian socialized care, and is eligible for the VA here, I pay my own way, because I've had the dubious privilege of the others. The NHS butchered my teeth, almost killed me, almost killed my mother. But hey, it was "free" right? Apart from that taxation thing.
And no, not everything that is taxed is "socialized." Though state education in both our countries is not impressive on a global scale.
We also have a lower death rate than the UK, higher survival rates for most cancers, lower youth unemployment, much higher GDP per capita and as purchasing power, lower public debt, only 15% of our GDP as taxes vs your 40%, half the external debt per capita, and a definition of "poverty" that includes TVs, cell phones, fridges, stoves and a roof over one's head.
In exchange, you live a few months longer in a council flat.
boy, you sure have it all over us.
The obvious solution, of course, is for you to live where you're happy, and leave us where we're happy.
Strider| 3.22.12 @ 10:53PM
As anyone who has experienced the military's "free" health care system will attest, as in other aspects of life you get what you pay for.
skip| 3.22.12 @ 10:01PM
Thomas,
True or false:
European nations do not count aborted unborn babies in their life expectancy calculations
European nations do not count newborn babies who die in their first 24 hours after birth in their life expectancy calculations
The United States counts aborted unborn babies in their life expectancy calculations
The United States counts newborn babies who die in their first 24 hours after birth in their life expectancy calculations
markenoff| 3.23.12 @ 1:20AM
Automobile deaths make a difference as well. More teenagers drive in the US and the average mor miles driven than in the UK. Americans overall are more likely to drive and more likely to drive more miles than those in the UK. Want to increase the life expectancy in the US to greater than the life expectancy in the UK? Postpone the driving age in the US to 18.
skip| 3.23.12 @ 2:45AM
Inner city gang related deaths make a difference as well. And all the 'healthcare' in the world isn't going to much help the obese eating 21 Big Macs a week.
The first time I ever heard the canard about U.S. life expectancy my bullshitometer instinctively blew up, and so I did a little research and lo and behold the Europeans don't count abortions or even babies up to 24 hours old. It is not apples to apples, or apples to oranges, or even apples to dump trucks; it is reason and experience based conservatives to emotionally prattling liberals.
U.S. medical care is the best in the world and truly exceptional.
Aynuk n Ayli| 3.23.12 @ 5:32AM
You'm saft , fish and chips breath. Me uncle died in Bristol because the NHS denied him a bed in hospital. We're better off poppin' down the rubby dub for a pointer moild than handing our carcasses to NHS for care.
Thomas| 3.22.12 @ 8:45AM
I agree with what you say about disincentives in the U.K. system re: work though!
David W| 3.22.12 @ 8:58AM
Here's a question. In the history of the US, has there ever been a true cut in overall spending (that hasn't involved some sort of government accounting trick or gimmick)? Has it not been the case that for almost any tax increase there has been a spending increase?
I would have not problem raising taxes if, and only if, Congress wouldn't spend it on stupid things - like the Dept of Education (how can we give this department more and more money yet our national test results are getting worse and worse?). Our taxes would increase only to see our current president give it to his cronies and bootlicks who are in the democratic party (and some in the GOP probably as well) - like the bridge to nowhere, like special highway off ramps that just happen to be next to some Congressperson's property that he/she can then sell to some developer. How about the "investments" that we need to spend tax dollars on? Green energy icons Solandra, Fisker, and the other floundering companies who magically get money from Obama just before they go bankrupt.
The only ones who truly rip people off are those to believe that the government owes them something. Those of us who work, even the overpaid billionaires, aren't ripping anyone off (unless we are a criminal, then we have the courts for that). If we could reduce spending substantially we might actually be able to reduce fraud, corruption, waste, and so forth AND still meet the basic needs of the citizens in this country (and a basic need is NOT free birth control pills).
Thomas| 3.22.12 @ 9:28AM
1) Good point about waste, corruption - we get these here too. And I also dislike needless government meddling and believe that generally the private sector is more efficient. So yes, there is indeed plenty of scope for budget reductions in both countries. One of the benefits of U.K. government "austerity" will hopefully be more efficient public services. 2) an aside really, but I'd argue that free birth control is probably preferable considering the alternative - even if only in overall cost terms.
Old Soldier| 3.22.12 @ 9:59AM
The Harding / Coolidge Administration cut the federal government for real in the early 20's. That was the last time other than some draw-downs from major wars.
sally| 3.22.12 @ 9:20AM
Even if EVERYONE's taxes were raised 100% the government would still fritter away every cent it can lay its nasty, greedy, corrupt little hands on and ZERO dollars would go toward anything important like, say, the federal debt.
George S| 3.22.12 @ 11:08AM
I'll answer your questions if you answer mine...
1. The reverse of the argument of paying too much taxes is paying what is required by agreement, which in our case is the Constitution. Not paying any taxes would undermine the Constitution and therefore would lead to anarchy. Which Republican has taken the position of anarchy?
2a. Our budget deficit is 1,300 billion dollars. The Warren Buffets (those earning a million or more a year) reported about 750 billion dollars of income in 2009. So what percentage of 750 would need to be taxed to raise 1,300?
2b. The reason for the 1,300 billion deficit is mainly due to the 2009 Stimulus. What did we buy that was worth 787 billion dollars and why do we now have to keep buying it every year?
3. I heard a joke that in the U.K. that their health care system is workable only in heaven, where it isn't needed, and in hell where they've got it.
Thomas| 3.22.12 @ 2:40PM
1) Exactly - thanks for agreeing with me. 2) I'm sorry that you mistakenly seem to think I said the only way to resolve the deficit is to tax million dollar earners. 3) Truly hilarious. Except that in the U.K. life expectancy is higher than the U.S. while healthcare spending is a lower proportion of G.D.P.
skip| 3.22.12 @ 10:39PM
Thomas,
True or false:
A former NHS director died this past year after waiting nine months for an operation that was cancelled four times in her own hospital
A Premier of Canada two years ago underwent heart surgery in the United States because the procedure was not available in his home province
benny havens| 3.22.12 @ 7:58AM
Buffett, another word merchant who is full of more Shxx then a Christmas turkey. I have three words for him- write a check!
Indy| 3.22.12 @ 8:08AM
Buffett is a power player, the media embraces him...funny how they don't report how much he will gain by POTUS blocking the Keystone pipeline, they don't report the back taxes his company owes, they use him and his secretary as a wedge to drive their agenda of class warfare, I really dislike this man. He preaches raising taxes on the wealthy, while he donates millions to The Gates Foundation so he recognizes the private sector will do a better job of spending money than the government.
Nancy in NC| 3.22.12 @ 8:31AM
Why don't old coots like Buffett and Soros ever die? They seem to live forever. Only the good die young?
Nymph| 3.22.12 @ 11:21AM
Here's the dirtly little secret you will never hear, and you didn't hear it from me, okay? They discovered that you can extend your life by consuming the soles of the unborn, hence the abortion clinic's and the lefts obsession with them. These harvested soles are very expensive so only the very rich leftist can afford them, ergo extended life for very rich leftiest like Buffet and Soros.
Indy| 3.22.12 @ 12:05PM
Your post is uncalled for, if you are going to post, at least use the correct term, "souls" not "soles"
Nymph| 3.22.12 @ 12:13PM
Thank you for your correction, my bad. And lighten up a little.
Strider| 3.22.12 @ 10:57PM
More likely they simply sold their own souls to Satan in exchange for very long life. Back in the '90s a friend hypothesized that Dick Clark had made the same deal in return for perpetual youth (that was before his stroke).
markenoff| 3.23.12 @ 1:22AM
They're eating baby feet?
Bill Husssein O'Stalin| 3.22.12 @ 8:10AM
I wonder what the public would think of Warren Buffet if they found out he got at least 25% of his wealth from the public and just about overnight.
During the financial crisis Buffett had about 10 billion in derivatives bets that were going down the tubes unless Goldman Sachs was recused by the taxpaying public. Buffett also hedged his bet and lent Goldman Sachs 5 billion for which he received just about an overnight payoff of 2 billion after Goldman Sachs was rescued by the taxpayers.
In essence, Warren Buffet is one of the most corrupt political insiders in America, stealing from the public at every opportunity and getting wealthier by the moment, while he begs that same government to tax you more.
In that sense, he's the greatest welfare queen who ever existed. And the media love him.
Melvin| 3.22.12 @ 8:22AM
The thing is with Warren Buffet and Jeffery Immelt, the need to get the Sam hell away from government, and start paying what the Liberals like to say, "Fair," share of taxes.
It is not that I don't have a problem with rich old white dudes, with model candy hanging onto their arms, but the problem that I do have is that they feel through their largess, that they have the now moral authority to tell me what to do in my life.
Something akin to Micheal Blomberg and his salt jihad in New York City. Warren Buffet gets in-front of the Congressional microphone wheezing about how he has all the answers with his, "Buffet Rule." "Well, Warren to be extremely frank with you. Your rule doesn't about to a pile of stinking bull squeeze."
Warren's just another guy like Immelt angling themselves to benefit massively from Crony-Capitalism. Something that hundreds of thousands small business owners don't have the benefit of. But these small business owners get hammered when they don't pay they're taxes, "What say you Warren, and Jeffery?"
Nancy in NC| 3.22.12 @ 8:29AM
I doubt they will be saying much, as you've said it all and pretty darn well too. Someone needs to tell these "swells" this is a free country, and we don't want the "ruling class" or need them to tell us what to eat, think, or do. And while we're at it, let's tell the MSM media they can stuff it as well. We're on to their crap too.
Reggie| 3.22.12 @ 8:59AM
Its spurious to debate equality when the game is rigged.
WillianInWien| 3.22.12 @ 9:13AM
While Buffet bloviates, the "management" of his companies continue to fight legal battles with the IRS over taxes due. The "Sage of Omaha" is free to talk the talk while his managers "walk a different walk". Buffet must want to appeal to the 47% of US citizens who currently do not pay federal income taxes and would love to see the "rich" pay more!
mark| 3.22.12 @ 9:26AM
Buffet is an idiot. I use to like him but no more.
Thomas| 3.22.12 @ 9:31AM
Great comment - very thought-provoking.
Todd S| 3.22.12 @ 12:54PM
Better stated that Buffet is a hypocritical phony, he clearly is not an idiot but he thinks most of us are like most liberal elites think.
squalis| 3.22.12 @ 10:04AM
Dems / libs (not just political class dems / libs) are so out of touch when it comes to tax rates. No amount of taxing will contribute anything meaningful to solving our long term debt problems.
http://www.reuters.com/article.....SD20120321
Anthony| 3.22.12 @ 10:06AM
Buffet is a buffoon and a crony capitalist stooge of Obozo's.
Buffet is hoping that as long as he shucks, jives and jigs for Obozo that the crocodile will leave him alone.
I've news for the billionaire leprechaun, Obozo and his henchmen will eventually eat Buffet alive!!
Nymph| 3.22.12 @ 11:25AM
It will be an all-you-can-eat-Buffet
Ward| 3.22.12 @ 10:17AM
Buffet is no fool. When the wealthy are required to pay a higher rate, they shelter more. One of the best income producing tax shelters is Berkshire Hathaway, which is run by Buffet. So as the tax rate increases, Buffet's income increases. Obama has been punked by Buffet all along.
bill| 3.22.12 @ 10:19AM
When Buffet started this nonsense a few years ago, I thought he was just a rich old coot who was showing signs of senility. I have come to believe that he is indeed the worst kind of hypocritical fraud. It appears that those who "sell out" pay a non monetary hidden (to them) price. They lose touch with reality, with the truth. They think others don't know what they've done. Ultimately they destroy their own credibility and reputation. The buyer in these deals never comes away empty-handed. Caveat venditor!
Vic| 3.22.12 @ 11:54AM
They should get rid of all tax shelters and gimmicks in the Tax code. That is what's making Buffett pay a lower tax compared to his secretary. Make it a flat tax on income, or in the minimum an income based 2 or 3 level tax structure. For fairness purposes there could be minimum threshold to being taxed at say a 20K level
Petronius| 3.22.12 @ 11:57AM
Buffett wants higher taxes for us so that the Demoncrat sharks won't mess with him.
To All and Singular: High taxes do not and will not do anything to prevent the rich from being rich. HIGH TAXES PREVENT THE REST OF US FROM BECOMING RICH! The Internal Revenue Code is specifically tailored to allow the middle class just enough so that we continue to struggle. Our biggest obstacle to accumulating real wealth is the Social Security/FICA Tax. Had people been allowed to keep and invest that money themselves, they would be financially secure today. Who does not want that? The statist control freaks in Washington who believe we're stupid, and the Republisnobs who don't want the sons of average middle Americans asking to date their daughters. Give me the Ryan rates of 10 and 25% and gut all entitlements except Veterans benefits Now.
Eric| 3.22.12 @ 11:59AM
This article makes a fundamental error.
It suggests the deficit can be fixed by having a few people pay more than their fair share.
The bottom 99% already pay more than their fair share of taxes - and taxes means all taxes, including sales, payroll and property. I should not have a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney, and if I were to pay even more, it would still not close the budget gap.
Apparently the author, the readers, and Mitt Romney will not help this country of their own free will. They need to be required, by law, to pay a fair share of the country's tax burden.
skip| 3.22.12 @ 2:04PM
A truly fair share, genius, would be the same share, not as a percentage of income and/or wealth, but as the same dollar amount.
Buffett pays the same amount of money you do for a hamburger in a fast food restaurant.
Individual taxation set at say $5000 per citizen would be truly a fair share. An individual pays the $5000, and avoids criminal conviction, and this individual is entitled to vote. A Constitutional Republic, based on Equality Under the Law, in reality.
Eric| 3.22.12 @ 3:21PM
If you are suggesting Mr Buffett uses the same amount of public resources to protect his vast empire as I do to protect my home, you are blissfully misguided.
skip| 3.22.12 @ 4:37PM
What I was directly suggesting, genius, is that a truly fair share would be the same share, not as a percentage of income and/or wealth, but as the same dollar amount, and that this would be a true reflection of a true Constitutional Republic based on a true equality under the law.
What I was indirectly suggesting, genius, is that anyone who believes the "bottom 99% already pay more than their fair share of taxes" is truly pathetically deluded.
Strider| 3.22.12 @ 11:05PM
How about a minimum amount of tax paid in order to vote? Using your number, if the "total tax" line on your 1040 is $5000 or more, you're automatically eligible to vote. If it's less, you have to pay the difference if you want to vote.
Unfortunately, either plan would require repealing the 24th Amendment.
L| 3.22.12 @ 12:14PM
Please remember that shareholders in Berkshire Hathaway don't receive dividends SPECIFICALLY because Buffett believes (1) that Berkshire can invest that money more efficiently than returning it to shareholders and (2) because he doesn't want his shareholders to have to pay taxes on it. Read that again. Could there be another better way to say "I don't think the government can do better than the private sector?"
Jeffrey Wilens| 3.22.12 @ 12:14PM
"Our biggest obstacle to accumulating real wealth is the Social Security/FICA Tax. Had people been allowed to keep and invest that money themselves, they would be financially secure today"
Nonsense. 95% of people would have had their retirement savings wiped out in the recent market crash.
And "high taxes" have never prevented anyone from getting rich because the "high taxes" do not kick in until you are already rich. For the most part unless you luck, talent or invent your way into high wealth, you are going to be stuck in your economic class or fall back. There is only a small percentage of mobility so the question is whether the vast majority should be able to enjoy a tolerable life, or do they have to get out the guillotines.
L| 3.22.12 @ 12:23PM
Isn't being able to "luck, talent or invent your way into high wealth" what this country was founded upon? Essentially, you are advocating socialism, where everyone is provided a living wage and living standard, with no opportunity to do or achieve more or less than others in a competitive democracy. At least we know where you stand.
Petronius| 3.22.12 @ 12:59PM
Bullshit! My effective tax rate as a working man was 44% Add to it property and sales taxes and insurance and I got nowhere. Even retired, if I go back to work part time, my effective tax rate will be over 40% again once I clear 3K gross. Look at your pay check deductions just once. Add all the other taxes and license fees and realize what the middle class really pays. Rich people are not my enemies. Economic illiterates with their sand box mentality are.
Todd S| 3.22.12 @ 1:09PM
Garbage Jeffrey, anyone who didnt panic sell did not have their retirement savings wiped out. Let me ask you something, would you rather have the 12.5% of social security money currently taken out and instead put it in your own 401-k savings or do you trust a deeply indebted government to provide for your retirement in the current ponzi scheme called social security? Maybe if you are over 65 currently, you think the system is just fine but for everyone else it is going to suck.
Here is another thing about guys like Buffet. They have theirs and they really don't want any company at the top and would like the government to put up barriers to others becoming rich like them. Same with big business, they like to have rent seeking power and to make it more difficult for the little guys to compete against them because they can afford all the lawyers and tax attorneys they need which small businesses cannot.
You clearly don't get it and buy into all the class warfare nonsense, sound like one of those Occupy idiots spouting Marxist cliches that have been dis-proven time and time again. You think it is the government's duty to provide you a "tolerable" life, quite sure that is not what Thomas Jefferson was getting at in the Declaration of Independence. Pathetic really
Allen Johnson| 3.22.12 @ 12:45PM
The writer has fallacious argumentation. Does he believe in any compulsory tax? Or in complete anarchism? The answer, of course, is clear. Taxation is necessary for a functioning government to coordinate a functioning society. This leads to questions, then, as to who pays taxes and who receives benefits?
One thinks of entitlement benefits. But what about corporate benefits, such as the enormous military-industrial complex that protects certain international interests? Do I need to explain that some poor schmuck washing dishes at a beanery in Mississippi is not exactly threatened by Afghanistan?
The upshot is that the rich want to tax those who work for a living, and lay off those who invest for a living.
Big Joe| 3.22.12 @ 1:25PM
why has no one brought up the fact that Buffet's companies are fighting with the government over ONE BILLION dollars in taxes that he says he doesn't owe? Write the freaking check Mr. Buffet!!!
BT| 3.22.12 @ 1:45PM
If Mr. Buffett were so concerned that he wasn't paying enough (and by implication, that the federal government needs more) why is he giving his money away through Bill Gate's foundation. Couldn't he just give it to the government, which we all know is so efficient at sticking to it's mission and getting the most bang for its buck. No Mr. Buffet, by his actions, clearly states that private allocation of funds is better than federal government spending. And if that is the case, why does he expect the rest of us to do what tells us to do. Stick to your investing, Warren. You embarrass yourself when you attempt to be a political pawn, though you are useful to our King.
Kevin Hill| 3.22.12 @ 4:23PM
The author makes a laughably juvenile point.
His argument can be summarized as "We high income people don't want to pay taxes at the same or a higher rate than lower income people so we will engage in 3rd grade (that's 9 year old) rationalizations to talk around the point and pretend it doesn't exist"
Mr. Buffet is absolutely right. There is no reason low income people to be payingtaxes at a higher rate than high income people. Obama is right too, that is common sense. The author understands this too if he has any shred of decency, but he pretends he does not for his own selfish reasons, how childish.
Mike Hawk| 3.22.12 @ 5:58PM
Low income people aren't paying any income taxes. Many are getting free money called EIC. That's swellfare.
bill| 3.22.12 @ 9:14PM
Hey Kevin, have another Kool-Aid buddy.
Jeff| 3.22.12 @ 5:33PM
This is one of my favorite conservative arguments. Buffet is a hypocrite because he doesnt voluntarily pay more taxes than required. The obvious point being that he wants everyone in his income tax bracket, including himself, to pay more taxes. He believes that the wealthy can afford to contribute to paying down the national debt, and is expressly putting his money where his mouth is. Then conservative's chortle "then why doesnt he write a check", pat themselves on the back for that asinine response, and completely ignore the substantive point that the very rich can afford to pay more taxes.
bill| 3.22.12 @ 9:19PM
On the contrary Jeff, Buffet is doing his very best to put his money not where his mouth is, but to put it as far away from the IRS and the federal government as he can get it. You too should have another tall frosty Kool-Aid.
Donald H. Conner| 3.22.12 @ 7:32PM
Buffet is only paid $1000,000 per year as head of Berkshire Hathaway. His MONSTROUS true income comes in the form of divdends, which are taxed at 15%. So who does he think he's kidding? All dividends for everybody are taxed at 15%, no matter how much or how little. Now if that income were taxed at the rate of the tax rate that is eqivalent to your 1040 reported income, there would be howls from Omaha that you could hear in the Andromeda Galaxy, which is the nearest galaxy to the Milky Way, at 2.5+/- million light years away, and is approaching the Milky Way at about 300,000 miles per minute.
Yeah Warren-smirk up your sleeve. To quote "the Queen of Mean", Leona Helmsly, "Only little people pay taxes.
Senator John Kerry's wife, the former Mrs. John Heinz (Heinz ketchup, Heinz 57.....) has $300 million in U.S. Government bonds. And all that income is TAX-FREE!!! That is why John's favorite wine is a $6,700 per BOTTLE of French wine. Yes, $6,700 bucks!!!!!
Now, children, do you understand why the rich get richer and the middle-class is doing very well(it isn't, you know) to just barely hold it's own. And meanwhile, as John gargles his wine, one in 6 Americans doesn't know, much less be sure of, where their next meal is coming from.
So think about this: who are you trying to keep up with? Bill Gates at $51 BILLION, Buffet at $47 Billion, and the other Forbes 400,--- 99.9995% of whom you've never even heard of and certainly don't want to know you.
You would be well advised to buy a 1 year old car from Enterprise Car Rental- but first ask their service people (NOT the people at the counter)which brand they have the least trouble with. Forget the Escaalde, the Explorer, The Grand Cherokee---youknow darned well it'll probably never even get on a gravel road, faaaar less some really rugged mountain goat path.
Buy a few extra packages of staples or cans of same, and put them in the basement. Lots of water and toilet paper too. EVERY TIME YOU GO SHOPPING. Every TIME. A heavy barrel Savage .22 Long Rifle. Gobs of ammo for same. You may not believe this, but Eskimos have killed Polar Bears with one well placed shot. Maybe some silver dimes and quarters and half-dollars or silver dollars.
You see, the Rockefellers have a family office that takes care of most of the business ventures, as do most of the ne plus ultra extremely wealthy. They just spend the money. They also have a mountain bunker that can supply every posssible need and want for ONE YEAR should some catastrophe occur.
Why do you suppose that is? Because they are privy to information the rest of us don't even know exists, and connections very few Americans can even inagine or dream of. They get the offers of ground floor buy-ins and sell-outs long before it becomes public knowledge, if it ever does.
A Brueguet or Rolex won't keep time any better than an Time-ex, an $8,000 purse won't carry your needs any better than a Coach (lifetime guarantee from them on that, you know?), and a lot of that other stuff you buy so you don't look "poor" to your peer group. My 2nd stepfather is worth well over $2 million, but he looks and dresses like the farmer he was. But he could go to the Ford dealer and write a check for $47K with no problem and drive away in a very nice pickup. Can you?
"LIVE BELOW YOUR MEANS" is the best financial advice I've ever gotten, and it allowed us to build a mutual fund portfolio which has supplied over $55,000 since my wife was laid off 3 years ago. I get $12,000 in SS. She earns whatever the going rate is for a training and development consultant. Sometimes it's $80 per hour. Others in $15-$20. BUT THE PORTFOLIO, WHICH HAS BEEN VERY HEAVY IN EMERGING MARKETS FOR 7 YEARS, HAS KEPT MONEY COMING IN WHEN WE NEEDED IT.
INVESTING IN ONE COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY THE USA, IS FOOLISH. WE ONLY HAVE 5% of the people and 25% of the world's wealth. Make your own choice. Just be sure it's the right one. Because I can guarantee you that's what the rich do:"NEVER put all your eggs in one basket".
God Bless you, and Keep you, and make His face to smile upon you, and don't forget: in Revelations
it says "Ye shall judged by your works". Make sure to do good ones, at least one every day. That ain't too much for anybody, is it?
An older and wiser Marine. Semper Fidelis and Semper Vigilans (Always Vigilant). "Si sic pacem, para bellum".
Pat| 3.22.12 @ 8:35PM
When Buffett proposes to tax the rich more, cosmic balance should be maintained by someone proposing to tax the poor more. I’ve been waiting patiently but no one, famous or otherwise, has stepped forward with an ingenious plan to tax the poor. It’s no sin to be poor but it is a sin to get out of paying income taxes and millions of Americans do just that. So, if Warren Buffett’s gardener pays his federal income tax, wouldn’t Warren want others in his gardener’s income bracket to do the same? And, as Warren pointed out, Warren’s private secretary pays her fair share of taxes, so shouldn’t all the other little people working for him be obliged to do the same?
Common wisdom says the poor will always be with us, so taxing the poor more feels right if they’re just gonna hang around forever. Yes, the poor already pay certain types of taxes, but our government spends much more so obviously raising tax rates on the poor is justified if our government stubbornly refuses to cut back. Sales taxes, license plate taxes, hotel taxes, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, etc. are a citizen’s privilege which we all, including the poor, must accept but what about income taxes?
And with what would the poor pay their income taxes? I suppose the same money they use to support Detroit’s gambling casinos or Chicago’s clothing stores. Discretionary income for gambling or high priced athletic shoes means the poor can voluntarily – or involuntarily - send some money to the IRS. Maybe by cutting back on weekly church contributions. Detroit’s churches don’t seem to be crumbling into ruin and their ministers definitely aren’t on starvation diets. Once the idea of income taxing the poor takes hold as politically correct wisdom, we will find some reasonable means of making it work. Just ask yourselves: What would Warren Buffett’s gardener do?
Ty Schroeder| 3.22.12 @ 9:01PM
Thank you Ron Ross!!! I am from Nebraska and I loathe Warren Buffet for being the absolute fraud that he is.
Carl Peter Klapper | 3.23.12 @ 12:00AM
Not only are Mr. Buffett's comments hypocritical, they display an economic ignorance which, in the present case, is most likely deliberate and self-serving. Income is not the same thing as wealth, so a tax on high incomes is not the same thing as a tax on excessive wealth. In fact, a surcharge on high incomes -- as proposed by the Democrats -- is a tax on wealth mobility. Far from being a tax on millionaires, it is a tax protecting the exclusivity of millionaires.
The homeless guy who got five bucks from the single mom who felt sorry for him on the subway -- and bought the cheap newspaper he was hawking -- who then turned around and wasted it on a lottery ticket at the liquor store, then found out that he hit the jackpot of $33 million, he will surely feel the wrath of the Democratic Tax Gods. He is, of course, would be one of the wealthy if only he could see some of that income after taxes.
The same applies to the sudden best-selling author, the new recording star, the newly signed southpaw and the boxing champ who lets his friends manage his money. The same also applies to the recent graduate with an MBA who finally broke the glass ceiling and is hoping to be able repay her student loans.
All of these should be allowed to use their windfall to put their lives back in order. None of them should be paying more taxes than Warren Buffett, because they are not as wealthy and they don't control other people's lives with their money.
POST American| 3.23.12 @ 12:00AM
------------------------FINAL WORD------------------------
Buffet, not only a CON-firmed EUGENIST,
but the very man who's massively profiting
on shipping 80% of our American oil out
of the country ---to RED China.
Folks, Andrew Breitbart's been 'disappeared'.
His likely murder's been memory holed.
Full-blown police state surveillance IS
in place. Former STASI and KGB man our
domestic Globalist creep op.
We stand perhaps just a few years from
total boots to the ground bankster managed
'receivership' to the most awesomely
genocidal regime mankind's ever seen.
You think Greece looks bad?
STAY TUNED
--There's no longer any question what we're facing.
POST American| 3.23.12 @ 12:00AM
------------------------FINAL WORD------------------------
Buffet, not only a CON-firmed EUGENIST,
but the very man who's massively profiting
on shipping 80% of our American oil out
of the country ---to RED China.
Folks, Andrew Breitbart's been 'disappeared'.
His likely murder's been memory holed.
Full-blown police state surveillance IS
in place. Former STASI and KGB man our
domestic Globalist creep op.
We stand perhaps just a few years from
total boots to the ground bankster managed
'receivership' to the most awesomely
genocidal regime mankind's ever seen.
You think Greece looks bad?
STAY TUNED
--There's no longer any question what we're facing.
POST American| 3.23.12 @ 12:00AM
------------------------FINAL WORD------------------------
Buffet, not only a CON-firmed EUGENIST,
but the very man who's massively profiting
on shipping 80% of our American oil out
of the country ---to RED China.
Folks, Andrew Breitbart's been 'disappeared'.
His likely murder's been memory holed.
Full-blown police state surveillance IS
in place. Former STASI and KGB man our
domestic Globalist creep op.
We stand perhaps just a few years from
total boots to the ground bankster managed
'receivership' to the most awesomely
genocidal regime mankind's ever seen.
You think Greece looks bad?
STAY TUNED
--There's no longer any question what we're facing.
Stephen Boone | 3.25.12 @ 11:37AM
Since Mr Buffet wants to change the tax laws, how about this simple one. Any person worth more than 500 million should not be able to put any money tax free into some "foundation" unless it has first been taxed as income. His good friend Bill Gates had a net worth several years ago of more than 40 billions. I have not checked lately, but I do know this. Not ever 2 percent of it was EVER taxed as income. No, all the stock in Microsoft he owns with a tax basis of only 2 or 3 CENTS at the most, dozens of billions of dollars, has not even been taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Mr. Buffet's billions are the same -- although it is possible as much as 5 percent of his have been taxed. This combined total of some 75 to 100 billion will, at some point, move into the Gates Foundation, never taxed as income and never to be taxed as corporate income. It amounts to "taking it with you." Let's change THAT law and stop worrying about secretaries. OK??
Set Our Children Free | 3.25.12 @ 10:01PM
If Buffett really means it, why has he been in court the last couple years fighting his own tax bill? If he and every other millionaire gave all their income to the government, it still wouldn't be enough, which is why you know this is just a ruse to raise taxes on all of us. By the way, I think he needs to hire a tax accountant for his secretary because nobody in the 36% bracket is that stupid.
Controse| 3.25.12 @ 11:28PM
Ron Ross please let me assure you that carping about how everyone in circumstances similar to yours should be forced to pay more taxes without actually paying more voluntarily is indeed the purist form of hypocrisy.
No| 3.26.12 @ 12:08PM
Skimmed your article to see if you had the bare minimum journalistic integrity to quote Buffett's response to Christie's criticism (he directly responded in a CNBC interview a few days later).
You didn't, so I didn't waste my time reading your article.
danshanteal| 3.26.12 @ 1:06PM
Mr. Buffett has become as unpopular as the president. Have you noticed the trend of his company stock of late? I think Mr Buffett's best quality is pusillanimity.