BUFFETT: TAX THE RICH

[Bfgrn]

Op-Ed Contributor
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

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.

More

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

 

[cancel2 2022]

Op-Ed Contributor
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

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.

More

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

Let's see what the usual suspects on here make of that.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's see what the usual suspects on here make of that.

Do you really think any of them will concur with Buffet?

Conservatives are always trying to create some form of an aristocracy. This will give them a forum to fawn over the opulent...LOL

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

But the "job creators" will stop creating jobs if their taxes are raised, won't they?

 

[christiefan915]

Op-Ed Contributor
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

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.

More

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

What a great article. I'm going to quote a line in my signature.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Where are the jobs the "job creators" were supposed to create when their taxes were cut?

 

[Bfgrn]

Where are the jobs the "job creators" were supposed to create when their taxes were cut?

It's only been a DECADE, but we can push these people, they will lash out and raise prices!!! Even though the ONLY limit on prices is the marketplace. If corporations COULD raise prices today, they WOULD.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Well, obviously we need to cut spending and taxes. That's why the magic didn't work.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Op-Ed Contributor
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

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.

More

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

Who wants to bet that is due to Bill Clinton and then GW Bush lowering the LT cap gains and 'qualified' dividends tax rates? Given the top 400 mentioned are going to make the vast majority of their incomes from those sources, I think we have to look no further.

Yet another reason for the flat tax with standard deduction. Get on board and lobby your Rep and Senators to enact it. ALL income taxed at the SAME rate.

 

[Onceler]

I have always hated the "fleece the rich" mentality, but for the debt crisis, this should have been 1/2 the way to go, just as a temporary measure - particularly closing loopholes for the wealthy.

If it had been part of compromise legislation (way to go, Cantor), then it would have allowed for spending cuts that would have changed our fiscal direction, and hopefully allowed the increases to be basically temporary. And it would have benefitted the wealthy more, because perhaps the market wouldn't have tanked, losing trillions in the process.

The #1 priority should have been getting the debt down in a meaningful way, so that S&P wouldn't have been able to justify a downgrade. Everyone would have benefitted; the rich have & will lose a lot more than they would have w/ the increased taxes now...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I have always hated the "fleece the rich" mentality, but for the debt crisis, this should have been 1/2 the way to go, just as a temporary measure - particularly closing loopholes for the wealthy.

If it had been part of compromise legislation (way to go, Cantor), then it would have allowed for spending cuts that would have changed our fiscal direction, and hopefully allowed the increases to be basically temporary. And it would have benefitted the wealthy more, because perhaps the market wouldn't have tanked, losing trillions in the process.

The #1 priority should have been getting the debt down in a meaningful way, so that S&P wouldn't have been able to justify a downgrade. Everyone would have benefitted; the rich have & will lose a lot more than they would have w/ the increased taxes now...

1) S&P cannot justify the down grade. Not at all. Not unless they follow up with downgrades of everyone else. Right now they have us as AA+ and Spain at AA? Really?

2) There was a compromise piece of legislation... the two parties in Congress had reached it... then Obama came in and 'wanted more'... and lost the deal.

3) The market was going down regardless of the tax situation here, so your comment that they would have been better off to get hit with tax increases rather than taking the market losses is not accurate. That said, we do need to eliminate loopholes/deductions and clean up the tax code. Arguing over raising/lowering the tax brackets is meaningless until we eliminate those loopholes and deductions that allow them to get their effective tax rates sub 25% (in some years sub 20)

 

[Bonestorm]

1) S&P cannot justify the down grade. Not at all. Not unless they follow up with downgrades of everyone else. Right now they have us as AA+ and Spain at AA? Really?

2) There was a compromise piece of legislation... the two parties in Congress had reached it... then Obama came in and 'wanted more'... and lost the deal.

3) The market was going down regardless of the tax situation here, so your comment that they would have been better off to get hit with tax increases rather than taking the market losses is not accurate. That said, we do need to eliminate loopholes/deductions and clean up the tax code. Arguing over raising/lowering the tax brackets is meaningless until we eliminate those loopholes and deductions that allow them to get their effective tax rates sub 25% (in some years sub 20)

Got a source for the bold?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What a great article. I'm going to quote a line in my signature.

I also like his ideas about attacking the trade deficit. That would have a far greater impact on creating jobs then either stimulus spending or budget negotiations.

 

[Onceler]

1) S&P cannot justify the down grade. Not at all. Not unless they follow up with downgrades of everyone else. Right now they have us as AA+ and Spain at AA? Really?

2) There was a compromise piece of legislation... the two parties in Congress had reached it... then Obama came in and 'wanted more'... and lost the deal.

3) The market was going down regardless of the tax situation here, so your comment that they would have been better off to get hit with tax increases rather than taking the market losses is not accurate. That said, we do need to eliminate loopholes/deductions and clean up the tax code. Arguing over raising/lowering the tax brackets is meaningless until we eliminate those loopholes and deductions that allow them to get their effective tax rates sub 25% (in some years sub 20)

Their faux-justification wouldn't have worked with a better, more comprehensive debt deal, which never really existed despite your post #2 there. There was never a compromise package that went far enough that would have passed both houses.

The market was not going down regardless. It wouldn't have gone down if a) they had passed a more comprehensive debt deal earlier, b) S&P hadn't downgraded the U.S. and c) they hadn't punted with a watered-down version of nothing that put all of the tough decisions off for a few years. In fact, it might have soared...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Who wants to bet that is due to Bill Clinton and then GW Bush lowering the LT cap gains and 'qualified' dividends tax rates? Given the top 400 mentioned are going to make the vast majority of their incomes from those sources, I think we have to look no further.

Yet another reason for the flat tax with standard deduction. Get on board and lobby your Rep and Senators to enact it. ALL income taxed at the SAME rate.

Yes but you might as well stay out of lala land cause a flat tax has about as much chance of happening as you busting 90 on a IQ test or 500 on a GRE.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Got a source for the bold?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59711_Page3.html

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes but you might as well stay out of lala land cause a flat tax has about as much chance of happening as you busting 90 on a IQ test or 500 on a GRE.

Because people like you continue maintaining that mentality. As I said, the more people you get on board, the more they send it to their Reps/Senators... the better the odds. Obviously it is going to take a populace movement to do so. No politician in either party wants to eliminate their major 'lobbying/bribes' source of income.

So, do you support the flat tax with standard deduction or are you satisfied watching the wealthy continue to bribe both parties into giving them more loopholes and deductions?

My plan as stated many times will:

1) Increase tax rates on qualified dividends and long term cap gains
2) Eliminate the highly regressive corporate tax
3) Protect low and middle income families from federal income taxes (as they are today)
4) Reduce the tax code from over 70k pages to 1.... making it far harder for anyone to avoid taxes... something so many Dem leaders seem adept at these days
5) Eliminate all subsidies to BIG OIL ... that by itself should have you jizzing all over yourself
6) Have two brackets adjusted for inflation: 20% for all sources of income up to $1million, 30% for all sources of income over $1million

Now... you can keep your head up your masters ass or you can choose to pull your head out, take a breath of fresh air instead of breathing in their bullshit, and demand that they take the necessary action to get this country back on track.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Their faux-justification wouldn't have worked with a better, more comprehensive debt deal, which never really existed despite your post #2 there. There was never a compromise package that went far enough that would have passed both houses.

The market was not going down regardless. It wouldn't have gone down if a) they had passed a more comprehensive debt deal earlier, b) S&P hadn't downgraded the U.S. and c) they hadn't punted with a watered-down version of nothing that put all of the tough decisions off for a few years. In fact, it might have soared...

Yes, the market was indeed coming down regardless. Europe and China's problems would have existed regardless of our debt deal. The debt deal was NEVER going to address the insane levels of spending the idiots in DC are so addicted to.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Because people like you continue maintaining that mentality. As I said, the more people you get on board, the more they send it to their Reps/Senators... the better the odds. Obviously it is going to take a populace movement to do so. No politician in either party wants to eliminate their major 'lobbying/bribes' source of income.

So, do you support the flat tax with standard deduction or are you satisfied watching the wealthy continue to bribe both parties into giving them more loopholes and deductions?

My plan as stated many times will:

1) Increase tax rates on qualified dividends and long term cap gains
2) Eliminate the highly regressive corporate tax
3) Protect low and middle income families from federal income taxes (as they are today)
4) Reduce the tax code from over 70k pages to 1.... making it far harder for anyone to avoid taxes... something so many Dem leaders seem adept at these days
5) Eliminate all subsidies to BIG OIL ... that by itself should have you jizzing all over yourself
6) Have two brackets adjusted for inflation: 20% for all sources of income up to $1million, 30% for all sources of income over $1million

Now... you can keep your head up your masters ass or you can choose to pull your head out, take a breath of fresh air instead of breathing in their bullshit, and demand that they take the necessary action to get this country back on track.

Dude you can spin your standard deductions as much as you want to. I studied math too and the numbers just don't add up.

The flat tax aint going to happen becuase of reasons your just not thinking through (no surprise there).

First, spin the bullshit all you want to with standard deductions, etc, a flat tax gives a huge break the wealthy who are all ready paying low rates while shifting the burdon of taxation to, not just the middle classes, but heartlessly on the poor cause now you just increased their cost of living by 23%! The numbers just don't work out because of the simple fact that most wealthy don't spend most of their income on living expenses. Most middle class people do and ALL poor people do.

Second, how the fuck are you going to administer it? Hmm? How are you going to make sure that 23% sales tax is being collected, honestly accounted for and then distributed to the Federal government? Please tell me how you will administer that without creating a bureaucratic collosus that make the IRS pale by comparison? That's one all you flat taxer just want to convienantly ignore but I have yet to see one feasable plan for administering this "Fair-Tax".

Third, how the hell are you going to pass this "fair-tax" into law with out either repealing or ammending the 16th ammendment? Hmmm? How you gonna do that?

Fourth, are you really that fucking niave to think that just cause one administration or congress comes along and creates this "flat tax" that following administrations or congresses won't come along and add on additional income taxes? Not only have you created the precedent for a huge regressive VAT type sales tax but then we'll get double dipped on income. You think you could stop that then you're not only niave you're a damned fool which you've gone a long way towards proving by saying something utterly absurd like "regressive corporate tax". (Nice oxymoron dude! lol).

So, quit fantasizing and lets get back to planet earth, ok? We have real problems to solve. Save your fantasies for nap time.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dude you can spin your standard deductions as much as you want to. I studied math too and the numbers just don't add up.

Obviously you studied your math in Ohio.

The flat tax aint going to happen becuase of reasons your just not thinking through (no surprise there).

First, spin the bullshit all you want to with standard deductions, etc, a flat tax gives a huge break the wealthy who are all ready paying low rates while shifting the burdon of taxation to, not just the middle classes, but heartlessly on the poor cause now you just increased their cost of living by 23%! The numbers just don't work out because of the simple fact that most wealthy don't spend most of their income on living expenses. Most middle class people do and ALL poor people do.

Yes, obviously your math was learned in Ohio. Tell me genius... how do the wealthy get a tax break? Their tax on qualified dividends increases. Their tax on LT capital gains increases. They lose ALL of their deductions and loopholes.

Next we learn that you are too fucking stupid to even know the difference between a flat tax and the 'fair' tax proposals. Try learning the difference before making such moronic comments. The poor would not pay any federal income tax, they would not see their cost of living increase 23% you fucking idiot. Flat tax vs. Fair tax.... until you learn the difference, perhaps you should shut the fuck up with regards to people who 'don't think things through'???

Second, how the fuck are you going to administer it? Hmm? How are you going to make sure that 23% sales tax is being collected, honestly accounted for and then distributed to the Federal government? Please tell me how you will administer that without creating a bureaucratic collosus that make the IRS pale by comparison? That's one all you flat taxer just want to convienantly ignore but I have yet to see one feasable plan for administering this "Fair-Tax".

LMAO... you truly are a fucking dumb ass. The administration of the FLAT tax would be EASIER than the current system. 70k pages of tax code vs. ONE PAGE. Again, learn the difference between flat tax and fair tax you fucking ignorant Ohio piece of shit.

Third, how the hell are you going to pass this "fair-tax" into law with out either repealing or ammending the 16th ammendment? Hmmm? How you gonna do that?

I don't have to you fucking idiot, because I am not talking about the 'fair tax'. You fucking ignorant Ohio piece of shit. You embarrassed yet Mr. think things through?

Fourth, are you really that fucking niave to think that just cause one administration or congress comes along and creates this "flat tax" that following administrations or congresses won't come along and add on additional income taxes? Not only have you created the precedent for a huge regressive VAT type sales tax but then we'll get double dipped on income. You think you could stop that then you're not only niave you're a damned fool which you've gone a long way towards proving by saying something utterly absurd like "regressive corporate tax". (Nice oxymoron dude! lol).

1) Again, you clearly don't know the difference between a flat tax and fair tax as you continually try to mix and match the two in your comments.
2) Their is NO VAT type sales tax in my proposal
3) One of us certainly has shown himself to be a complete fool
4) The corporate tax is most certainly regressive you idiot.... but please tell us.... who do YOU think pays the tax that is levied on corporations?

Is it (a) stockholders (b) executives of the corporations (c) other employees of the corporation (d) consumers

Tell us genius... WHO pays that tax of the above (hint, it can be more than one)

Side note... all that bitching about hurting the 'poor' and increasing their cost of living.... THAT is EXACTLY what the corporate tax does, because as you mentioned, the poor and middle classes SPEND far more of their income as a percentage than do the wealthy.

So, quit fantasizing and lets get back to planet earth, ok? We have real problems to solve. Save your fantasies for nap time.[/QUOTE]