Buffet says tax the super rich

[zinfamous]

I really wish you had worded that differently.......D:

it's worded perfectly, tyvm. ^_^

 

[dmcowen674]

This part is confusing for me. Is Buffett comparing apples to Oranges? For example is he comparing his Federal Tax rate with the other people's in his office total tax burden including federal and state tax? The highest Federal income tax bracket is 35% and that is only on income over $370k if you are single. How could his people in his office have a average federal income tax rate of 36%, this just doesn't make any logical sense.

Do you think he has any employees in his office making less than $250,000?

 

[sarsipias1234]

Warren Buffett told CNBC today that Congress is playing a “silly” game of “Russian Roulette” by threatening not to raise the nation’s debt limit as it debates deficit reduction. In a live interview on Squawk Box from Sun Valley, Idaho, where he’s attending the annual Allen & Co. media conference, Buffett warned of “enormous disruption” if there’s no deal to raise the U.S. debt limit. Buffett told Becky Quick that the country’s bills will be paid one way or the other, and Congress should address the situation with “maturity.”

Enormous disruption! Rioting?

See I think this is the true message Warren is trying to get across.

People are angry and ready to riot so don't screw this up Congress!

 

[sarsipias1234]

“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,” he said. Warren Buffett

I paid 30% capital gains taxes when I invested in stocks and was extremely happy and proud to pay 30% because I was rich and had more than I needed.

 

[glenn1]

Buffet says tax the super rich

I agree with him. Let's tax the sh!t out of those rich bastards making over $250k a year, who are vastly over-represented in high cost urban areas that vote for Democrats. Heck, why limit it just to a certain income bracket - if you live in Manhattan or San Francisco you make too much money by definition and we should tax you at a far higher rate.

 

[glenn1]

Hahahahahahahaha!

So if one person pays more, the government spends it and nothing changes.

But if everyone pays more... Wait I don't see the difference.

The point isn't how much gets paid in taxes, it's about soaking the rich. If some rich person is volunteering to pay more, it defeats the entire purpose of the "stick it to the man" exercise. Progressives would rather increase taxes by 10% on a wealthy person who fights the increase kicking and screaming, than double them on a Warren Buffet type who pays them cheerfully.

 

[LegendKiller]

The point isn't how much gets paid in taxes, it's about soaking the rich. If some rich person is volunteering to pay more, it defeats the entire purpose of the "stick it to the man" exercise. Progressives would rather increase taxes by 10% on a wealthy person who fights the increase kicking and screaming, than double them on a Warren Buffet type who pays them cheerfully.

This is utter bullshit. When it comes down to it, capital gains of less than the income tax rate is nothing more than an encouragement for investing in a casino than it is in long-term growth of the country. The cap gains tax should be raised and so should the taxes in the higher tax brackets, if not new brackets.

 

[NeoV]

oh, I see, Fern is the only person who posts here who might possibly work in a tax or economics-related field, and that makes him immune to any criticism whatsoever - got it

No one is saying this solves everything.

When someone at his income level is paying a lower effective tax rate than someone in income brackets below him - there's a problem. Throw everything else out in this discussion - it's a clear and obvious imbalance and it should be fixed.

As for the criticism of Buffet - it's ridiculous. The man is 80, he has always lived, despite his enormous income, an very low-key lifestyle and has given so much money to charity - he may be taking a stance that you don't agree with, but to attack him, to suspect ulterior motives..it's elementary school stuff - quite frankly it's the norm in our sorry political state right now - not surprising either, but it is what it is.

 

[LegendKiller]

oh, I see, Fern is the only person who posts here who might possibly work in a tax or economics-related field, and that makes him immune to any criticism whatsoever - got it

No one is saying this solves everything.

When someone at his income level is paying a lower effective tax rate than someone in income brackets below him - there's a problem. Throw everything else out in this discussion - it's a clear and obvious imbalance and it should be fixed.

As for the criticism of Buffet - it's ridiculous. The man is 80, he has always lived, despite his enormous income, an very low-key lifestyle and has given so much money to charity - he may be taking a stance that you don't agree with, but to attack him, to suspect ulterior motives..it's elementary school stuff - quite frankly it's the norm in our sorry political state right now - not surprising either, but it is what it is.

Considering I probably have the most education and experience in the field on the board, I am utterly immune.

 

[glenn1]

When someone at his income level is paying a lower effective tax rate than someone in income brackets below him - there's a problem. Throw everything else out in this discussion - it's a clear and obvious imbalance and it should be fixed.

Good chance that's because of one of two things:

1. His "income" is actually capital gains. So unless Warren spontaneously generated the money invested that led to the gain, the funds would have already been taxed as income when originally earned. The reason why the tax rates for capital gains are lower than income is because the government is already taking a second bite of the apple.

2. He invested in government issued bonds, which are typically exempted from taxation, and thus are typically able to be sold by the government entity at a lower coupon rate than otherwise. The government is forgoing collecting taxes on the income paid to the bond owner in favor of those interest payments being lower. Again, you can't have it both ways; either the investors pay taxes on the bond interest or the government can pay the higher rates for a taxable bonds.

 

[LegendKiller]

Good chance that's because of one of two things:

1. His "income" is actually capital gains. So unless Warren spontaneously generated the money invested that led to the gain, the funds would have already been taxed as income when originally earned. The reason why the tax rates for capital gains are lower than income is because the government is already taking a second bite of the apple.

2. He invested in government issued bonds, which are typically exempted from taxation, and thus are typically able to be sold by the government entity at a lower coupon rate than otherwise. The government is forgoing collecting taxes on the income paid to the bond owner in favor of those interest payments being lower. Again, you can't have it both ways; either the investors pay taxes on the bond interest or the government can pay the higher rates for a taxable bonds.

1. The "2nd bite" argument is a lie perpetuated by asset managers. They get massive brakes by utilizing this argument, as you can see from the Fortune 400 list composition between 1980 and now. Asset managers are far more promenant. Obviously the "2nd bite" argument falls apart in the real world.

2. I wasn't aware BRK had large positions in USTs, please post where you found this.

 

[glenn1]

1. The "2nd bite" argument is a lie perpetuated by asset managers. They get massive brakes by utilizing this argument, as you can see from the Fortune 400 list composition between 1980 and now. Asset managers are far more promenant. Obviously the "2nd bite" argument falls apart in the real world.

2. I wasn't aware BRK had large positions in USTs, please post where you found this.

You seem to be conflating capital gains and carried interest. If you wanted to talk about the latter, then you should say so.

I have no idea Buffet holds in his portfolio, but holding tax-advanted bonds might be one reason why his effective tax rate could be lower than his staff members, whose tax profile might have a higher percentage of earned income than Buffet.

 

[LegendKiller]

You seem to be conflating capital gains and carried interest. If you wanted to talk about the latter, then you should say so.

I have no idea Buffet holds in his portfolio, but holding tax-advanted bonds might be one reason why his effective tax rate could be lower than his staff members, whose tax profile might have a higher percentage of earned income than Buffet.

Cap gains are paid by funds also, including principals. That's not even getting into strategies at the funds that skirt the gains.

I do know what he holds. Perhaps you should research it a bit more before you blather on about what he may hold. It isn't hard to find and it isn't USTs.

 

[bfdd]

Capital gains are income, you put your money to work and it earns you an income(at least it can if you don't fucking suck) just flat tax it all the same. Fuck other brackets, that shit doesn't work. People with money will just fight for deductions and the like to get out of paying their higher percentage like they currently do. Flat tax and shrink the IRS.

 

[Triumph]

I don't get the capital gains argument. Should I not have to pay sales tax on something I buy because the gub'ment already charged me tax on the money that I'm using? Even if you disagree with that argument, I don't agree that using money to make income should be treated differently than using anything else to make income.

 

[LegendKiller]

I don't get the capital gains argument. Should I not have to pay sales tax on something I buy because the gub'ment already charged me tax on the money that I'm using? Even if you disagree with that argument, I don't agree that using money to make income should be treated differently than using anything else to make income.

New income is new income. They aren't charging you tax on money that you had, but new money you made.

 

[LegendKiller]

Capital gains are income, you put your money to work and it earns you an income(at least it can if you don't fucking suck) just flat tax it all the same. Fuck other brackets, that shit doesn't work. People with money will just fight for deductions and the like to get out of paying their higher percentage like they currently do. Flat tax and shrink the IRS.

Yeah, because that's such a great system in, say, Russia where you see even worse wealth disparity. Flat taxes move a population backwards and leads to a plutocracy even faster.

 

[rchiu]

Hey by all mean, tax capital gain at a higher rate. But to be fair, what about getting rid of the $3000 capital losses limit? For a big player, losing hundreds of thousands to millions in a year is not uncommon. But why is that only $3k per year can be used to offset the gains in the future years?

If I lost 1 million last year but make $50k this year, how is it fair that I have to pay tax on $47k this year?

 

[glenn1]

Cap gains are paid by funds also, including principals. That's not even getting into strategies at the funds that skirt the gains.

I do know what he holds. Perhaps you should research it a bit more before you blather on about what he may hold. It isn't hard to find and it isn't USTs.

Jeez you are dense; it's like explaining something to a child. Yes, his purported portfolio holdings are available online, his tax returns showing the breakdown of his sources of income, deductions, and adjustments is not. There's no way to know what percentage breakdowns are between active (earned) income, passive income, and portfolio income (capital gains and dividends), and each have different tax treatment.

 

[LegendKiller]

Jeez you are dense; it's like explaining something to a child. Yes, his purported portfolio holdings are available online, his tax returns showing the breakdown of his sources of income, deductions, and adjustments is not. There's no way to know what percentage breakdowns are between active (earned) income, passive income, and portfolio income (capital gains and dividends), and each have different tax treatment.

Sorry dude, but you're the one being dense - trying to explain this to you is akin to talking to a brick wall. Buffet has said that he doesn't keep money in bonds, he's just not a bond investor. He might do so for temp. liquidity purposes but that's it. There's not one shred of evidence towards him being a bond investor, tax exempt or otherwise, and a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

I know you're trying to grasp at anything, but it comes down to the fact that the guy's point is that the loopholes for the wealthy, whether cap gains, writeoffs...etc, all add up to the uber low tax rate. His point is that all of it needs to change.

 

[glenn1]

Sorry dude, but you're the one being dense - trying to explain this to you is akin to talking to a brick wall. Buffet has said that he doesn't keep money in bonds, he's just not a bond investor. He might do so for temp. liquidity purposes but that's it. There's not one shred of evidence towards him being a bond investor, tax exempt or otherwise, and a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

I know you're trying to grasp at anything, but it comes down to the fact that the guy's point is that the loopholes for the wealthy, whether cap gains, writeoffs...etc, all add up to the uber low tax rate. His point is that all of it needs to change.

Let's start over again from the beginning. I think we can establish the following:

1. Warren Buffett states that he pays a lower effective tax rate than others in his office.

2. There are various types of income which can be taxed at different rates.

3. Glenn1 postulates that a differing income source mix is the likely reason why Buffett may pay a lower effective tax rate than peers in the office.

While you seem to be in agreement with 1-3 above, you seem unwilling to concede #3 without conflating it with your proposed #4:

4. LegendKiller argues that the differential tax rates for various income types are a "loopholes for the wealthy."

Can you stipulate 1-3 before moving on to 4?

 

[LegendKiller]

Let's start over again from the beginning. I think we can establish the following:

1. Warren Buffett states that he pays a lower effective tax rate than others in his office.

2. There are various types of income which can be taxed at different rates.

3. Glenn1 postulates that a differing income source mix is the likely reason why Buffett may pay a lower effective tax rate than peers in the office.

While you seem to be in agreement with 1-3 above, you seem unwilling to concede #3 without conflating it with your proposed #4:

4. LegendKiller argues that the differential tax rates for various income types are a "loopholes for the wealthy."

Can you stipulate 1-3 before moving on to 4?

1. WB states that while directly tying it to capital gains taxes - thus, the connection is simply that the majority of his income comes from CGs, in line with his theory and mode of investing.

2. Obviously there is, but none fits with what we currently know of Buffet, including method, mode, and discussions of raising the CG.

3. Obviously if his thrust were at CG, then his primary income is derived from CG. Further, that he pays such a low tax rate, in line with CGT, further provides proof.

4. We know that Glenn loves to hide behind the word "conflate" in order to avoid the inevitable logic that WB invests solely in stock, that stock in long-term holdings, those holdings taxes at 15%, his tax rate near 15% and his targeting of CG specifically. Thus, using a really special word Glenn must have just learned today he's able to obfuscate (now you can use that one) the reality that THE primary target is CGT

5. Those rates ARE loopholes for the wealthy. The investing class lobbied for their reduction and they got it, repeatedly. Buffet, having utilized CG his whole life to build wealth realizes what it means, thus, he attacks it for what it is, a loophole for the wealthy to propagate more wealth and lobby for lower taxes.

 

[glenn1]

1. WB states that while directly tying it to capital gains taxes - thus, the connection is simply that the majority of his income comes from CGs, in line with his theory and mode of investing.

2. Obviously there is, but none fits with what we currently know of Buffet, including method, mode, and discussions of raising the CG.

3. Obviously if his thrust were at CG, then his primary income is derived from CG. Further, that he pays such a low tax rate, in line with CGT, further provides proof.

4. We know that Glenn loves to hide behind the word "conflate" in order to avoid the inevitable logic that WB invests solely in stock, that stock in long-term holdings, those holdings taxes at 15%, his tax rate near 15% and his targeting of CG specifically. Thus, using a really special word Glenn must have just learned today he's able to obfuscate (now you can use that one) the reality that THE primary target is CGT

5. Those rates ARE loopholes for the wealthy. The investing class lobbied for their reduction and they got it, repeatedly. Buffet, having utilized CG his whole life to build wealth realizes what it means, thus, he attacks it for what it is, a loophole for the wealthy to propagate more wealth and lobby for lower taxes.

And you're obfuscating that I've already agreed that tax rates should be raised on the well-off. I wouldn't shed a single tear if you were to tax the shit outta some Manhattan hedge fund managers or San Francisco lawyers. The higher the better in fact.

 

[trenchfoot]

Taxing the super rich is like scooping a bucket of water out of a huge private lake. They wouldn't miss it at all unless you forced them to give it to you.

 

[disappoint]

This. Go ahead. Jack up the rates on the wealthy. That will generate a few billion a year.

What's next?

Cut the budget on shooting brown people in the middle beast.