Warren Buffet

[leatherneck]

Warren is at it again, claiming the rich need to pay more in taxes. At least he's saying the rich are those making a million or more a year not the "wealthy" benchmark of $200,000 for an individual filer; $250,000 for a couple filing that President Obama is advocating. I've long contended it's quite convenient for Mr. Buffet to claim he and others should pay more taxes; heck he could pay 100% tax on his annual income and it wouldn't affect his lifestyle one dang bit because he's already made so much money. He needs annual income to survive and maintain his lifestyle like I need 10 more pounds.

 

So I was rather pleased with the attached WSJ column: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

 

Pay particular attention to his response to the question posed of him as to why he doesn't voluntarily pay more money to the U.S. government. If that's not enlightening, I don't know what is. He doesn't trust the federal govt to wisely spend the money he'd voluntarily contribute, but he trusts them to spend the increase revenue generated by higher taxes on the rich. Admittedly, I didn't spend last night in a Holiday Inn, but that is completely irrational, illogical and just flat out stupid.

 

I'd be much more impressed if he was clamoring for himself and other rich folks to voluntarily turn over to the federal govt all their net worth in excess of the average net worth of all Americans to help the deficit. Got a good feeling I'll never hear those words out of his mouth however. .

[Habib]

I often hear how hypocritical it is to advocate for higher tax rates while not voluntarily donating the commensurate sum of money to the government. I think this misses the point. Tax rates, like any other law, is a policy and for it to have a chance of succeeding it has to affect the total population. Warren Buffet suggesting rates be raised is to suggest that the cumulative sum of that revenue would have a substantial impact on the government's ledger, whether to balance it, fund programs, whatever. Warren Buffet donating money to the government would be ineffectual. Those are entirely different things and I think they should be treated as such. Would it be an effective policy if we said heroin is illegal - unless you want to voluntarily do it, then go right ahead? You can't drive a car without getting a license - unless you want to voluntarily do it?

[cammando]

http://news.yahoo.com/real-reason-warren-buffetts-taxes-low-171220991.html

[Clyde]

http://news.yahoo.com/real-reason-warren-buffetts-taxes-low-171220991.html

 

The writer completely misses his point. Mr. Buffett is not quibbling with how many dollars he pays. He's arguing that people like him who make a great majority of their money off of investments pay a lower effective rate than the average secretary at his company. His argument is that his rate should be higher.

[cammando]

The writer completely misses his point. Mr. Buffett is not quibbling with how many dollars he pays. He's arguing that people like him who make a great majority of their money off of investments pay a lower effective rate than the average secretary at his company. His argument is that his rate should be higher.

The entire article is not appearing with the link... I'll try to find another one... The author is explaining WHY his rate is lower..

[leatherneck]

I often hear how hypocritical it is to advocate for higher tax rates while not voluntarily donating the commensurate sum of money to the government. I think this misses the point. Tax rates, like any other law, is a policy and for it to have a chance of succeeding it has to affect the total population. Warren Buffet suggesting rates be raised is to suggest that the cumulative sum of that revenue would have a substantial impact on the government's ledger, whether to balance it, fund programs, whatever. Warren Buffet donating money to the government would be ineffectual. Those are entirely different things and I think they should be treated as such. Would it be an effective policy if we said heroin is illegal - unless you want to voluntarily do it, then go right ahead? You can't drive a car without getting a license - unless you want to voluntarily do it?

 

Perhaps, but it would sure make my opinion of Buffet go up if he put his money where his mouth is. Maybe others similarly situated would do the same if he took the voluntary approach. I hate, despise, detest the forced taking of someone's property because they have been successful. It's a philosophical thing with me. The man paid something like 7MM dollars in income tax last year. I think he's already forcibly paying more than his fair share of the system.

 

Better heroin analogy in this case is that Buffet is seemingly saying: I like using heroin and I know the use is killing me. But I'm not going to quit using it unless the govt forces everyone else to quit using it too.

 

Care to comment on his response as to why he donates to foundations and doesn't give the money to the federal govt because the foundations "will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government"? If that's what he believes, why isn't he publicly campaigning for the government being reformed to lower it's administrative costs and to do a better job deciding where and how the money is spent?

[75center]

It is funny that I haven't seen any headlines saying "Warren Buffet claims government is squandering tax dollars!"

[2 Humped Camel]

A salary of $200,000.00 is more than 5 1/2 times the average workers salary in the United States. To suggest that isn't "wealthy" doesn't take the facts into account and shows a lack of understanding of the actual incomes earned by most people in the United States. I'd however be willing to raise that bar a few hundered thousand for compromise purposes, but I agree with Buffett's contention that yes an effective tax rate on the wealthy of about 15% is far to low. Close the loop holes and let them pay their fair share and stop soaking the middle class.

[woodsrider]

A salary of $200,000.00 is more than 5 1/2 times the average workers salary in the United States. To suggest that isn't "wealthy" doesn't take the facts into account and shows a lack of understanding of the actual incomes earned by most people in the United States. I'd however be willing to raise that bar a few hundered thousand for compromise purposes, but I agree with Buffett's contention that yes an effective tax rate on the wealthy of about 15% is far to low. Close the loop holes and let them pay their fair share and stop soaking the middle class.

The catch phase of 2011. Do you feel the same about the 50% of Americans that pay no federal income tax? Some of which actually come out ahead.

 

Also, if you think someone living in New York City making $200,000 per year is wealthy then you are the one who lacks understanding. Someone living is Henderson, KY making $200,000 I would consider wealthy but you can't apply that across the board.

[75center]

The catch phase of 2011. Do you feel the same about the 50% of Americans that pay no federal income tax? Some of which actually come out ahead.

 

Also, if you think someone living in New York City making $200,000 per year is wealthy then you are the one who lacks understanding. Someone living is Henderson, KY making $200,000 I would consider wealthy but you can't apply that across the board.

 

Let's not forget a "taxpayer" is also a couple filing jointly. Two teachers in NYC with a lot of experience can make the $200,000 total and net half their pay with all the federal, state and local taxes. Don't think that's considered "wealthy" in that city.

[leatherneck]

A salary of $200,000.00 is more than 5 1/2 times the average workers salary in the United States. To suggest that isn't "wealthy" doesn't take the facts into account and shows a lack of understanding of the actual incomes earned by most people in the United States. I'd however be willing to raise that bar a few hundered thousand for compromise purposes, but I agree with Buffett's contention that yes an effective tax rate on the wealthy of about 15% is far to low. Close the loop holes and let them pay their fair share and stop soaking the middle class.

 

You don't think 7MM (that's $7,000,000) is a fair share? Wow! And that doesn't take into the effect the corporate income taxes paid on that same income.

[acemona]

A salary of $200,000.00 is more than 5 1/2 times the average workers salary in the United States. To suggest that isn't "wealthy" doesn't take the facts into account and shows a lack of understanding of the actual incomes earned by most people in the United States. I'd however be willing to raise that bar a few hundered thousand for compromise purposes, but I agree with Buffett's contention that yes an effective tax rate on the wealthy of about 15% is far to low. Close the loop holes and let them pay their fair share and stop soaking the middle class.

 

That is because they don't earn enough money to pay INCOME TAXES. It would be silly to take their money then give it back in aid. If the people earned more, they would pay INCOME TAX. They do, however, pay PLENTY of TAXES both locally and federally.

[75center]

That is because they don't earn enough money to pay INCOME TAXES. It would be silly to take their money then give it back in aid. If the people earned more, they would pay INCOME TAX. They do, however, pay PLENTY of TAXES both locally and federally.

 

It's my experience from having done thousands of tax returns that yes, they do make enough to pay income taxes and no, they do not pay "plenty" of federal taxes.

 

By the way, how much IS enough to pay income taxes?

[2 Humped Camel]

You don't think 7MM (that's $7,000,000) is a fair share? Wow! And that doesn't take into the effect the corporate income taxes paid on that same income.

 

That's a lot of money no doubt, but how much did he make? I'd bet I paid a higher percentage of my income in taxes. So if we have a progressive tax system why are the wealthy paying a lower percentage than me? Is that fair?

[2 Humped Camel]

The catch phase of 2011. Do you feel the same about the 50% of Americans that pay no federal income tax? Some of which actually come out ahead. Also, if you think someone living in New York City making $200,000 per year is wealthy then you are the one who lacks understanding. Someone living is Henderson, KY making $200,000 I would consider wealthy but you can't apply that across the board.

 

No issue with this at all, our representatives where aware this would happen at the lower tax brackets when they started passing tax credits for children, etc which were largely passed under Republican control if I'm not mistaken. What is the solution if it can't be applied across the board? Regional tax rates? Then you would just have wealthy people setting up shell companies in lower pay areas and have their pay come from those shell companies.