-
Even the Europeans Rethink the Welfare State
April 21, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare for Everyone Except Obama’s Appointees
March 8, 2013 | 3 comments
-
The Sensitive Saudis: They Want Democracy for Everyone Else
March 5, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Remember, There Is No Spending Problem!
February 26, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Another Useful Reminder that Communism was Loathsome
February 24, 2013 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Warren E. Buffett is an admirable fellow, talented in finance and generous in philanthropy. However, he obviously has “grown” as his public image has enlarged. Now he wants to spend other people’s money.
Writing today in the New York Times, he proclaimed:
for those making more than $1 million - there were 236,883 such households in 2009 - I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more - there were 8,274 in 2009 - I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
Being allowed to keep more of the money one earns is a strange definition of being “coddled.”
However, he argued, they wouldn’t mind being taxed more. Explained Buffett:
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
But if this is true, why do Buffett and the other rich people so ready to pay more have to be told to pay more? Why don’t they just pay more on their own?
The principle is simple. If you think the government is entitled to steal more of your money for dubious, stupid, and wasteful programs, then give the government more of your own money. Don’t ask it to take more from those who don’t think Feeding the Beast is the best way to shrink government. After all, the wealthy already pay the vast bulk of income taxes.
The principle especially applies to Warren Buffett. While alone he couldn’t wipe out the national debt, he could make a nice down payment. How about it Warren?
View all comments (40) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Doug Bandow
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/15/warren-e-buffett-should-give-m
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
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.15.11 @ 6:22AM
Buffett is the ultimate phony hypocrite and is the equivalent of a billionaire welfare queen. In that sense he's like a typical liberal supporter of the welfare state. When the nation hit a crisis, Buffett not only gamed the system to help himself out because of his own bad judgment, he milked the opportunity for two billion in taxpayer funds. Here's how it worked:
http://www.businessinsider.com.....z1V5jzYysa
At a time when all the tough guys in Washington are making plans to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for high-living seniors and to cut Head Start for low-income kids, it was generous of Warren Buffett to point out that we taxpayers gave over $1 billion to Goldman Sachs through TARP. Buffett probably didn't intend to point out this fact to the country, but it is an unavoidable implication of his $2 billion profit on his loans to Goldman.
Buffett made his $5 billion loan to Goldman about a week before the Treasury lent $10 billion to Goldman through the TARP program. Buffet got 10 percent interest on his loans, while the Treasury got 5 percent on its loans. In addition, Buffett got a much more generous commitment of stock warrants, which is the basis of the $2 billion in profits that he is now set to pocket.
Teflon93 | 8.15.11 @ 7:52AM
There is a line on the 1040 form for contributions to the Treasury. Buffett and any of his liberal billionaire friends could put any amount in on that line, send it in with a check, and believe me---the government would cash it.
What Buffett dishonestly fails to note is that the deficit for this year alone is $1.645 trillion. If you add up the cumulative wealth of the entire Forbes 400 and confiscate it all---including Buffett's fortune, which should make him very happy indeed---you will have raised $1.27 trillion.
Pauperizing the 400 wealthiest families in America wouldn't even cover this year's deficit, much less the deficits for as far as the eye can see given us by the liberals. We would have to destroy wealth at an astonishing and unprecedented rate in order to plug the wholes ravenous leftists have left in the budget.
The only way that hole is going to be plugged is by pauperizing the middle class as well---or by reversing these gigantic Obama spending schemes.
A. Doer| 8.15.11 @ 12:54PM
He never said that making the tax code less regressive would, by itself, pay off the deficit.
BTW, it's not just the top 400 who benefit from the tax code favoring those who make most of their money by holding shares of stock in a brokerage account, over those who work hard to bring in a paycheck.
It's a question of fairness. If you don't mind the government taking twice as much from every dollar of your salary as it takes from someone whose money came from investments, then the GOP will do everything in its power to keep the tax system regressive, with your blessing.
Maybe, with your help, they can get you to pay three times as much out of every dollar. Four times? Five times? Is there a point at which you would start to think it was unfair?
timb| 8.15.11 @ 2:04PM
no they wouldn't. The IRS returns over-payments. Buffett would have to make a special deal with the Treasury.
Of course, this ignores the central premise of the article, which is that all rich people need to pay more since they can and their country needs them to. Silly people like Paul Ryan like to complain about spending at 24% of GDP, but never mention how historically low revenue at 14% of GDP is.
Still, it's nice to see you people have been so well-trained by Limbaugh and the rest of your feudal lords that you will defend the rich and their abusing of the tax code over the last 3 decades without their help.
And, to keep them from paying 3% more on income over 250,000, y'all will gladly sign up for cuts to middle class interests: the mortgage deduction, Medicare spending, and Social Security! You people are mensches
Aaron| 8.15.11 @ 5:40PM
Which 1040 line is this that you speak of?
Susan H.| 9.10.11 @ 1:07PM
Pauperizing the super-rich is really an amusing comment, but I digress.
First, you don't know if Buffet does or does not give more than he is required to the US Treasury. What is publicly known is that he gives billions per year (NOT millions, billions) to charity. So does Bill Gates along with other notable proponents of higher taxes on the wealthy. The trouble with voluntary efforts is you can't count on them (they are discretionary) and not everyone will contribute (and in fact most don't.)
By the way, the wealthy did just fine during the Reagan years, and for most of that time the tax rates on the rich were about double of what they are now. Look it up.
scott| 8.15.11 @ 7:55AM
You do realize Warren Buffet just gave away a majority of his wealth?
How can you say anything bad about someone that gives away 30 billion dollars to help the needy.
JP| 8.15.11 @ 8:32AM
Gates put his income into a special trust fund created by none other than Bill Gates. The Trust is something only the wealthiest and most connected can create. By law, only a small portion of the cash assets are distributed to charities (usually Progressive front groups). The vast majority of the lute is allowed to grow tax free. The Trust also is exempted from inheritence and death taxes. All of the Gates and Buffet's beneficiaries are "employed" by the Trust and receive at least a million dollar salaries. They are employed for life. In this way Gates and Buffet can take thier earnings avoid paying taxes on them. This isn't philanthropy but legalized tax avoidence. Not only does Buffet retain the vast majority of his dividends and income, but he can pass it on to future Buffets without paying out one penny in taxes.
Some philanthropy.
JP| 8.15.11 @ 8:33AM
The first sentence should read "Buffet puts his income..."
Bruce H| 8.15.11 @ 9:14AM
They may have donated their wealth to the needy but they gave it to private organizations and not the government. Also, if they think they should be paying more in taxes then they can give more by not takig the tax breaks.
Susan H.| 9.10.11 @ 3:16PM
You are wrong about this, JP... Where do you get your information, or did you just make this up?
Teflon93 | 8.15.11 @ 9:10AM
Did Buffett give that money to the U.S. Treasury? If not, why not.
Bonus question: why doesn't Buffett take a salary of, say, $1 M a year? You may want to look at the difference in capital gains and income tax rates in formulating your answer.
If you answer either and come away thinking Buffett is a saint you're badly mistaken.
A. Doer| 8.15.11 @ 12:32PM
Bonus question: why doesn't Buffett take a salary of, say, $1 M a year?
Because that would be a 10x increase over his current salary of 100,000?
Buffett's no saint. He just thinks that it's unfair that the government takes half as much of every dollar he takes in as they do of every dollar you take in.
If you're comfortable giving the government twice as much from every dollar as someone who earns more in an hour than you'll earn all year, then just ignore him.
Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 10:15AM
Because he wants others who are not as fortunate to give away more than they may be able to afford. Further, we need investments, not cowboy poetry festivals.
Bob K.| 8.15.11 @ 11:17AM
You mean instead cowboy poetry festivals like having the NFL team you own play in a taxpayer funded stadium? And I almost forgot, you can depreciate your investment in the salaries you pay your players too!
Ain't our tax code grand!
timb| 8.15.11 @ 2:04PM
Because, in their Christian faith, they know Jesus meant the needy sucked and the rich people should be left alone
JOHN| 8.15.11 @ 7:57AM
All he has to do is tell his accountants to file a 1040EZ and take the standard deduction.
Joseph| 8.16.11 @ 6:17PM
Buffet cannot file a 1040EZ b/c he makes over $100,000.
JimH| 8.15.11 @ 8:20AM
Mr. Buffet knows full well that such people can afford the lawyers and CPAs which allow them to show as much or as little income as they wish so this is meaningless.
Jocon307 | 8.15.11 @ 9:17AM
This is like Obama saying he has more money than he needs.
Good for him.
Why doesn't he forgo his salary as President, or give back some of it?
Why wasn't he asked about this statement by the press?
Bob K.| 8.15.11 @ 9:23AM
If the hypocritical bastard was advocating getting rid of all the tax writeoffs that protect the income and wealth of himself and his friends it might make a difference. Otherwise he should shut up.
MikeBee| 8.15.11 @ 9:51AM
The best thing Warren could do to help the economy is to open up a bunch of companies which would employe a bunch of people. Do this, and revenues to the U.S. Treasury increase in tax withholdings. But, Warren is not going to do this. Remember that he is the guy Obama was stating that he would rely on for economic advice; of course he's going to parrot whatever Obama says is the answer to our malaise. Instead, the malaise will continue, but Warren will benefit greatly somehow from the Obama administration.
MS| 8.15.11 @ 10:30AM
I think it's safe to say that Warren Buffet already employs more than "a bunch" of people in the US
MikeBee| 8.15.11 @ 11:05AM
MS,
You're right; he already does. What I was trying to say is, if he has some extra bucks hanging around, burning a hole in his pocket, he should open MORE companies and employ MORE people. If he gives more money to the U.S. government in taxes, they will be glad to waste it for him. With extra funds from the super rich, the U.S. government will only get themselves in more debt, and more trouble with credit markets.
DAVID| 8.15.11 @ 9:54AM
And the poor... why don't they just get poorer on their own? Why do we have to help them?
Steve Thompson| 8.15.11 @ 9:57AM
For those that have wondered how America's tax levels compare to those of other nations, here's an examination of the tax levels on earned income for all OECD nations:
http://viableopposition.blogsp.....wedge.html
The United States, despite its massive and growing deficit, has among the lowest taxation level on earned income among all OECD nations and at a rate that is substantially less than most Eurozone nations. Unfortunately for all of us, governments tend to use increased revenue as a reason to spend even more.
A. Doer| 8.15.11 @ 10:19AM
Oh, please. He's arguing for more fairness in the tax structure. He's not even arguing that the rich should pay a higher tax rate than regular working class folks. He's just pointing out that it's a bit unfair that he earns hundreds of millions of dollars a year and pays something like half the tax rate of someone earning fifty or a hundred thousand a year.
The next time you see an article about "Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes" you can mentally translate that into what it really means: The GOP wants me to pay double the tax rate of someone who earns more in one year than I would earn in five thousand years.
If it's okay with you that the government takes twice as much out of every dollar you earn as it takes out of every dollar Warren Buffet earns, making it harder for you to accumulate savings to try to improve your situation, then never mind.
Wayne | 8.15.11 @ 11:07AM
Buffett is hardly admirable. He is a billionaire on the public dole. He could not give back enough, to account for what he has stolen with his back-room deals with politicians. He just has a better PR agent than Soros. Find take their money AND their influence, which would be the harder nut for them to swallow.
Bob K.| 8.15.11 @ 11:11AM
Like John says above. All he has to do is take the standard deduction that most of the middle class has to take and not take advantage of all the tax write offs and breaks that are only there for the wealthy.
A. Doer| 8.15.11 @ 11:45AM
Bob, Bob, Bob. Do you seriously know that little about the tax code? He could take the standard deduction and the government would still only be taking half as much from every dollar of his as they take from every dollar of yours. It's not about write offs and tax breaks at all.
It's that the tax code is written to favor people who take in most of their money from owning shares of stock over actually working for a living. That's all. First, by not working for a living they avoid the payroll tax of 16% or 17% or whatever it is these days. Then they also get taxed at a lower rate than the ordinary income rate.
That's why someone like Buffett can earn more in one day than you'll accumulate in your entire lifetime, and have the government take half as much from every dollar of his that they take from every dollar of yours. Welcome to the GOP view of "fairness".
Skip Franklin| 8.15.11 @ 11:41AM
Here's why not...because government is in the business of redistributing wealth. You don't build a redistribution system on optional inputs (taxes) and required outputs (entitlements). Either both need to be required, or both need to be limited. If I had the resources of a Buffet, I also wouldn't give money to any organization (gov't or otherwise) that can't understand this simple principle.
steve| 8.15.11 @ 12:52PM
Do you really need to be told the answer to your question as to why rich people don't just pay more taxes voluntarily? Do you engage in many 'painful' activities unless you are compelled to?
You miss Mr Buffett's point completely. Why should those so able to contribute a bit more not? I doubt that the other folks in his office paying more in taxes make nearly as much annually.
jj| 8.15.11 @ 2:37PM
Buffett will voluntarily pay down the deficit when rich republicans voluntarily stop accepting social security, medicare, and the other entitlement programs that the republitards take advantage of, but want to cut to balance the budget.
Ralph| 8.15.11 @ 3:12PM
"Being allowed to keep more of the money one earns is a strange definition of being 'coddled.'"
As if the money one earns is earned in a vacuum. No mention of the safe playing field that make it possible to earn the money, so much of it, so safely. No mention of roads, air traffic control, SEC, police, teachers, firemen, and myriad more members and aspects of society that make it possible to amass and retain that money. Surely all of that is not worth anything. If you think it worthless, go offshore to some place with none of those things to support your wealth-building endeavors. Why do you think people come here? For the weather?
Maegan| 8.15.11 @ 3:13PM
Can a person actually give money to the government? I honestly didn't think that was a thing. I guess he could stop using loopholes, if he is currently. But I don't think he can wire money directly to congress. That seems crazy to me.
Maegan| 8.15.11 @ 3:15PM
"There is a line on the 1040 form for contributions to the Treasury. Buffett and any of his liberal billionaire friends could put any amount in on that line, send it in with a check, and believe me---the government would cash it." Interesting. I had no idea. Thanks.
Joe Marty| 8.15.11 @ 6:28PM
"why do Buffett and the other rich people so ready to pay more have to be told to pay more?"
It's not about being told - it's about making an agreement. The truth about participating in a community is that it doesn't work unless everyone makes a joint commitment or "covenant" to contribute. If we are all simply "allowed" to give whatever we want, we can't count on everyone else to overcome their own greed and contribute enough to make the system function. However, if we all make an agreement that we will each chip in a certain amount, and we are all held accountable for it, then it works out, and my individual contribution isn't wasted on people who are too greedy to contribute themselves.
This process may not be immediately apparent to people inexperienced in developing and participating in functional communities, but it's certainly not rocket science.
Bill Beardsley| 8.16.11 @ 8:48AM
well said, for every Warren Buffett there are a thousand greedy pigs that hate the thoughts of parting with a single penny.
Eliza Doolittle| 8.15.11 @ 6:54PM
Pauperizing? Paying 6 or 10 or 30 percent more income tax is not going to "pauperize" those at the top. Warren Buffett and other "rich liberals" know how to work the system--you're right about that-- but their own independent contributions would be like peeing in the ocean.
ticonderoga777| 10.18.11 @ 9:11AM
This article is utterly ridiculous. Warren is known for giving away the most money out of any philanthropist. He's given away over half of his net worth since he started.
And he CONTINUES to keep giving.
He's calling for this tax increase because no matter how much HE gives, it still won't solve the problem, unless everyone else gives the same amount(%).
I would bet my life that this Doug Bandow is a conservative republican.