Warren Bussett

Stop Coddling the Super-RichBy 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.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

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.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

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.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share

I think taxes are a responsibility. A certain member likes to ask if anyone had ever heard of a nation taxing itself to prosperity, but the fact is, there really haven’t been prosperous nations without taxes.

Thoughts?

[QUOTE=Taixuquan99;1124699]I think taxes are a responsibility. A certain member likes to ask if anyone had ever heard of a nation taxing itself to prosperity, but the fact is, there really haven’t been prosperous nations without taxes.

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

That’s me, so just say it next time. I wont be offended.

But the question remains; Can you give me one example of a country taxing itself into prosperity? I notice Buffett didn’t name any.

[QUOTE=A Certain Member;1124702]That’s me, so just say it next time. I wont be offended.

But the question remains; Can you give me one example of a country taxing itself into prosperity? I notice Buffett didn’t name any.[/QUOTE]

Can you name a prosperous country without taxes? If not, then every prosperous country ever fulfills, in function, your request.

[QUOTE=Taixuquan99;1124710]Can you name a prosperous country without taxes? If not, then every prosperous country ever fulfills, in function, your request.[/QUOTE]

I never said we don’t need taxes, so that statement is flawed. But I am combating the false premise that rasing taxes is good for an economy.

Just name one country. :wink:

disneyland

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1124715]I never said we don’t need taxes, so that statement is flawed. But I am combating the false premise that rasing taxes is good for an economy.

Just name one country. ;)[/QUOTE]

Setting taxes reasonable to a situation presumes raising or lowering them based on circumstances in the society and the world at the time. Since you say we need taxes, we must need them for things taxes are for, and so you admit that, if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be raised.

Thank you.

What is Vatican City Alex?

[QUOTE=Taixuquan99;1124721]Thank you.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for what?

You still haven’t gaven me ONE example of a country taxing itself into prosperity.

Of course I’ve pointed out 3 different times in the United States history where tax cuts raised revenue as well as raised the tax burden on the rich. Now it’s your turn to provide ONE example like I’ve asked for. Or can you not do that? If you can’t, just admit it. I can’t, and I have no problem admitting it.

[QUOTE=Taixuquan99;1124721] if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be raised.[/QUOTE]

Actually history shows quite the opposite.

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1124726]Actually history shows quite the opposite.[/QUOTE]

No, history has not shown that if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, that they fulfill their purpose.

[QUOTE=Taixuquan99;1124729]No, history has not shown that if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, that they fulfill their purpose.[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say they did.

I’ll correct your post so you might see what I mean:

“if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be lowered.”

Because as I’ve shown, lowering taxes actually increases revenue.

It has never been about Tax, it has always been about what you GET for the taxes you pay, that is why some countries pay a lot but you don’t see people complain as much.
Tax the rich only puts the money they have in the pocket of the government and I would prefer the rich SPEND the money on the economy.
I say TAX the rich IF they don’t spend it.
Monet being spent is what stimulates and keeps economies strong.
Big taxes only equals big government and NO guarantees that the money gets where it is supoose to go.

In my view everyone pays the same, say 25% and then add tax “motivators” to motivate those with serious coin to SPEND it IN HOUSE.

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1124736]I didn’t say they did.

I’ll correct your post so you might see what I mean:

“if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be lowered.”

Because as I’ve shown, lowering taxes actually increases revenue.[/QUOTE]

This argument is the opposite of what you’ve already stated, that taxes are necessary. If lowering automatically increases revenue, then lowering to zero increases revenue most.

What you are avoiding is that there both the possibility of taxes being too high and of being too low, and if the latter, lowering them more is futile.

[QUOTE=Taixuquan99;1124740]This argument is the opposite of what you’ve already stated, that taxes are necessary.[/QUOTE]

I’ve never stated taxes are not necessary. I believe this is now twice in this thread alone you’ve attributed things to me I’ve not even said. Debate what I say, not what you claim I said.

[QUOTE=Taixuquan99;1124740]If lowering automatically increases revenue, then lowering to zero increases revenue most.[/QUOTE]

I guess a ‘Bell Curve’ is not something you are familiar with.

[QUOTE=Taixuquan99;1124740]What you are avoiding is that there both the possibility of taxes being too high and of being too low, and if the latter, lowering them more is futile.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that taxes are too low right now?

I didn’t see Buffett mention spending, just taxes.

And I’ll wager that Buffett didn’t get rich by spending more money than he took in month after month for decades on end and just borrowing more and more money to keep going and going down that path.

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1124746]
Are you saying that taxes are too low right now?[/QUOTE]

For the top earners, yes.

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1124746]I’ve never stated taxes are not necessary. I believe this is now twice in this thread alone you’ve attributed things to me I’ve not even said. Debate what I say, not what you claim I said.[/quote]

I’ve attributed just fine, you are avoiding accepting a point at which lowering taxes ceases to pay off, if you say there is no such point, then that means no taxes are necessary.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest expense
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License TaxMedicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?

There is no such thing as a nation without taxes.
ergo the question is moot.

Nations cannot be without taxation, prosperous or otherwise.
The question, though it came from an interesting person, is fake at the bottom line and used as a piece of political rhetoric.

take one second to think about the statement.

then take another to think about exactly how nations would prosper without taxes.

done. good. So you understand how political rhetoric is all crap now?

good. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1124756]Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest expense
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License TaxMedicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?[/QUOTE]

Essentially free labor dissapeared with the end of Jim Crow laws.

Child labor ended.

Need any more nails in your utopian coffin? We’d bomb those primitives to dust in a nanosecond, we’re closer to having a state of liberty than they ever could dream possible for all Americans, and we aren’t putting frikkin kids in coal mines. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than the dollar.