Buffet says tax the super rich

[Atreus21]

Atreus' link, above, is completely off the mark because if you don't sell, then you won't have any investment income w/o dividends.

The guy who wrote that has no idea what he's talking about.

I think that what he meant is that while his wealth increases because of appreciation, his income remains the same.

 

[werepossum]

I think that what he meant is that while his wealth increases because of appreciation, his income remains the same.

Exactly. Wealth is what you have, not your income. Someone who earns a billion a year and spends a billion a year, retaining no assets, isn't wealthy. Someone whose assets appreciate by a billion a year is extremely wealthy even with no income. And he can always sell off assets as needed.

 

[LegendKiller]

Have a look here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/11/us-berkshire-buffett-compensation-idUSTRE62A5SH20100311

He takes a salary of $100k?

That's a freakin joke IMO, and the IRS ought to be all over him.

I'd wager the great bulk of his compensation comes from "carried interest". See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest

I.e., Buffet has structured his compensation to take maximum advantage of the very tax loophole he rails against.

I don't apologize for seeing that as hypocritical.

Fern

Except that BRK isn't a partnership and Buffett is not a partner of it.

Buffett does have holdings outside of BRK and he also does sell BRK shares once in a while.

 

[Fern]

Except that BRK isn't a partnership and Buffett is not a partner of it.

Buffett does have holdings outside of BRK and he also does sell BRK shares once in a while.

So no carried interest provision?

Well, I stand corrected. Thanks.

(Well then his salary of $100K is an even bigger joke.)

Fern

 

[Hacp]

You only need enough money to breathe, eat, sleep, and poop.

Everything else is what you want.

Wow. You make logical sense. Does this mean we can take away medicare and free cellphones from the people who don't work that leech off the working man's blood, sweat, and tears?

 

[sarsipias1234]

Wow. You make logical sense. Does this mean we can take away medicare and free cellphones from the people who don't work that leech off the working man's blood, sweat, and tears?

To support yourself you only need so much.

Infrastructure is paid by voluntary donation via taxes.

Such as roads, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth.

Medicare is funded in part by social security and payroll taxes from which we all benefit.

You sound like a rich person trying to avoid paying more taxes.

Income tax is voluntary. There is nothing in the constitution requiring income tax.

There is no law other than the IRS to force you into compliance.

If just 10 percent of the population refuse to pay income tax the country will fail.

And look at what we have! Almost 50% not paying income taxes. This is a conscious decision to not pay taxes or not to DONATE!

And then people wonder why the country is in debt and failing.

 

[alkemyst]

This thread is proof no one wants to take the hit and it should be 'everyone' elses problem.

IMHO Buffet's stance is an honorable one. He's is preaching exactly what he also intends to be part of.

Still my personal opinion looking at tax bullshit for 20+ years now as a working individual is that going to a straight sales tax system will be painful at first, but the right way to go.

Put in place a level everyone can spend 'duty-free' and anything above and beyond gets taxed. No loopholes, no exceptions.

You buy that G6, you pay the tax..you buy that 32" flat panel at WalMart you pay the tax.

The more you spend the more you are taxed.

This also gets around the MAJORLY growing population of working off the books and not paying anything into the system, but taking advantage of it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Wow. You make logical sense. Does this mean we can take away medicare and free cellphones from the people who don't work that leech off the working man's blood, sweat, and tears?

Why would you do that to yourself?

 

[sarsipias1234]

This thread is proof no one wants to take the hit and it should be 'everyone' elses problem.

IMHO Buffet's stance is an honorable one. He's is preaching exactly what he also intends to be part of.

Still my personal opinion looking at tax bullshit for 20+ years now as a working individual is that going to a straight sales tax system will be painful at first, but the right way to go.

Put in place a level everyone can spend 'duty-free' and anything above and beyond gets taxed. No loopholes, no exceptions.

You buy that G6, you pay the tax..you buy that 32" flat panel at WalMart you pay the tax.

The more you spend the more you are taxed.

This also gets around the MAJORLY growing population of working off the books and not paying anything into the system, but taking advantage of it.

Yes, this fits nicely with the idea of a consumer or carbon tax based on usage.

If you pay for sales tax only that accounts for environmental damage done by excess consumerism.

This would insure 100% tax compliance under this system.

On top of 100% compliance you would also have the benefit of a simple tax system only concerned with relatively few businesses as opposed to 300 million people.

 

[Jhhnn]

This thread is proof no one wants to take the hit and it should be 'everyone' elses problem.

IMHO Buffet's stance is an honorable one. He's is preaching exactly what he also intends to be part of.

Still my personal opinion looking at tax bullshit for 20+ years now as a working individual is that going to a straight sales tax system will be painful at first, but the right way to go.

Put in place a level everyone can spend 'duty-free' and anything above and beyond gets taxed. No loopholes, no exceptions.

You buy that G6, you pay the tax..you buy that 32" flat panel at WalMart you pay the tax.

The more you spend the more you are taxed.

This also gets around the MAJORLY growing population of working off the books and not paying anything into the system, but taking advantage of it.

In other words, the wealthy get off paying a small fraction of what they pay now... and the rest of us pay more.

Seems like a variant of the old move the tax burden down the scale that Repubs have advocated for decades.

 

[sarsipias1234]

In other words, the wealthy get off paying a small fraction of what they pay now... and the rest of us pay more.

Seems like a variant of the old move the tax burden down the scale that Repubs have advocated for decades.

I believe the sales tax idea to be the most fair as this represents more accurately the essence of why America is successful. America is successful because of sales! Sales and the transfer of money for goods and services is the backbone of our economy. So why not tax the backbone of our economy as this is the most reliable source of income? I think people are afraid of any sort of change and that is what keeps America from advancing to the next generation of prosperity. We need to change the way we tax people! Obviously people do not like taxes as they now exist in their current form. We need to have the courage as a nation to make the next leap into a new frontier of taxation and representation.

 

[alkemyst]

I believe the sales tax idea to be the most fair as this represents more accurately the essence of why America is successful. America is successful because of sales! Sales and the transfer of money for goods and services is the backbone of our economy. So why not tax the backbone of our economy as this is the most reliable source of income? I think people are afraid of any sort of change and that is what keeps America from advancing to the next generation of prosperity. We need to change the way we tax people! Obviously people do not like taxes as they now exist in their current form. We need to have the courage as a nation to make the next leap into a new frontier of taxation and representation.

Most are so against it because they can't skate under the radar.

Much of the laws and regs passed are about what's good for those making them, not the country.

 

[sarsipias1234]

Corruption has destroyed any meaningful unity of people in America.

United we stand, divided we fall.

We have lost the ability to work together to create the synergy needed to be the greatest nation on earth.

So after the economy collapses completely maybe will be smarter and do things in a logical way.

Or not.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Income tax is voluntary. There is nothing in the constitution requiring income tax.

Not sure what you're trying to say.

The 16th Amendment in the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy an income tax.

There is no law other than the IRS to force you into compliance.

Oh yes there is. Congress has passed all kinds of laws forcing income tax compliance, everything from civil to criminal.

(The IRS doesn't have the power pass laws either, that rests with Congress.)

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

The Tax Foundation pretty much blows Buffett out of the water here:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27547.html

Taxing people who make $1-10 million a year at a 50% effective rate (50% of what they earn goes to the feds)
Will only raise $119 billion

Taxing people who make more than $10 million at a 100% effective rate (take ALL their money)
Raises $186 billion a year

Seems like a lot of money until you realize that our current deficit is $110 billion a MONTH!!!

If you wanted to eliminate the deficit completely you would have to take EVERY PENNY from anyone making $200k or more a year.

But hey his idea is a start right?
Let's raise the rate on everyone making more than a million to 50% a year.
That will net us around $200 billion a year.


Any suggestions on where we find the other $1 trillion needed to balance the budget?

We could eliminate the defense department and still be $250 billion short (an boost unemployment to 15%)

Now what?

 

[Jhhnn]

The Tax Foundation pretty much blows Buffett out of the water here:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27547.html

Taxing people who make $1-10 million a year at a 50% effective rate (50% of what they earn goes to the feds)
Will only raise $119 billion

Taxing people who make more than $10 million at a 100% effective rate (take ALL their money)
Raises $186 billion a year

Seems like a lot of money until you realize that our current deficit is $110 billion a MONTH!!!

If you wanted to eliminate the deficit completely you would have to take EVERY PENNY from anyone making $200k or more a year.

But hey his idea is a start right?
Let's raise the rate on everyone making more than a million to 50% a year.
That will net us around $200 billion a year.


Any suggestions on where we find the other $1 trillion needed to balance the budget?

We could eliminate the defense department and still be $250 billion short (an boost unemployment to 15%)

Now what?

Well, PJ, if the rest of America is called upon to accept austerity, then the wealthy need to pitch in, as well, and the only way that'll happen is to raise their taxes. And it's not like they'll make much of a meaningful sacrifice, given that it'll likely not affect their lifestyles more than marginally.

Ask a guy who makes $33K to pay an additional 10%, and it'll definitely crimp his lifestyle. Ask a guy who makes $1.8M to do the same thing, and the kids will still go to Harvard. The latter proposal affects .1% of the filers, the former affects 50% of filers, with the former raising only slightly more money...

Today's wealthy didn't get there overnight- they've been coddled for 30 years, and have enormous resources beyond their annual income, something that can't be said for earners at the median income level of $33K.

America's ultra rich can take the hit, PJ, no matter what Steve Schwarzman & Grover Norquist want you to believe.

 

[Jhhnn]

D/P

 

[Fern]

Well, PJ, if the rest of America is called upon to accept austerity, then the wealthy need to pitch in, as well, and the only way that'll happen is to raise their taxes. And it's not like they'll make much of a meaningful sacrifice, given that it'll likely not affect their lifestyles more than marginally.

(Not PJ, but..)

I see it as inevitable that taxes on the rich will be raised if we actually move to eliminate deficit spending. The cuts are gonna be substantial with many feeling the 'sacrifice' and, therefore, they will be in favor of raising taxes on the rich. But some won't and never will support those taxes.

OTOH, if we don't see serious spending cuts I'm not sure we'll see those Bush cuts for rich rolled back any time soon. Heck, the Dems didn't get it done when they had firm control of both houses in Congress and Obama in the WH. And I don't see that level of Dem control happening again any time soon.

Fern

 

[GuitarDaddy]

(Not PJ, but..)

I see it as inevitable that taxes on the rich will be raised if we actually move to eliminate deficit spending. The cuts are gonna be substantial with many feeling the 'sacrifice' and, therefore, they will be in favor of raising taxes on the rich. But some won't and never will support those taxes.

OTOH, if we don't see serious spending cuts I'm not sure we'll see those Bush cuts for rich rolled back any time soon. Heck, the Dems didn't get it done when they had firm control of both houses in Congress and Obama in the WH. And I don't see that level of Dem control happening again any time soon.

Fern

You keep on repeating that dems had firm control of Congress, the dems never had firm control of the Senate because of the filibustering 41 and you know it. So just quit the insesant whinning about when dems had control they didn't do this or that.

And your assumption that if we would quit spending so much the wealthy would suddenly become charitable and except higher taxes is PURE bullshit. They had no problem giving themselves tax breaks when we were knee deep in fighting two wars and deficit spending like drunk sailors, and anyone with a brain knew then that these cuts were unwarranted and would lead us to ruin.

The wealthy will never except reasonable marginal tax rates, they will have to be forced upon them.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll agree that Dems should have allowed all the Bush tax cuts to expire & extended UI benefits to end, at least when viewed from an entirely political perspective.

Let the new Repub HOR go back to their districts & explain how they raised the taxes of the average working stiff & ended UI benefits in the worst recession of 70 years while attempting to hold taxes low for the ultra rich. Not even they can carry that off. Repubs would have been stuck trying to cut taxes rather than holding the full faith & credit of the govt hostage to their ideological whims wrt the debt ceiling. They can apparently get away with talking out of both sides of their mouths, just not at the same time..

We wouldn't be talking about their possible fortunes in 2012 in terms other than the epic ass whupping they'd take...

The Dem leadership apparently factored in things other than the political, like the actual welfare of the citizenry, whether the citizenry fully realizes that or not. If Repubs have their way, nobody will remember that at all come election day.

 

[Fern]

You keep on repeating that dems had firm control of Congress, the dems never had firm control of the Senate because of the filibustering 41 and you know it. So just quit the insesant whinning about when dems had control they didn't do this or that.
-snip-

Never? Really?

Wrong (as usual).

DEMOCRATS ACHIEVE FILIBUSTER-PROOF MAJORITY IN U.S. SENATE

http://www.aacr.org/home/public--me...e-filibuster-proof-majority-in-us-senate.aspx

and

Democrats Ponder Loss Of Filibuster-Proof Majority

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122799603

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
And your assumption that if we would quit spending so much the wealthy would suddenly become charitable and except higher taxes is PURE bullshit. They had no problem giving themselves tax breaks when we were knee deep in fighting two wars and deficit spending like drunk sailors, and anyone with a brain knew then that these cuts were unwarranted and would lead us to ruin.

The wealthy will never except reasonable marginal tax rates, they will have to be forced upon them.

You can't read worth a damn.

Nothing in my post said anything like "the wealthy would suddenly become charitable and except higher taxes" etc.

Fern

 

[Arkaign]

Relevant and entertaining :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDDfPxF3EFE

 

[HeXen]

have the rich give us all poor folk money, then we spend and help the economy. yay

 

[Jhhnn]

Dems control of the Senate was never really absolute, Fern, and we both know it. There were a few months in 2009 when they theoretically had 60 votes, counting Lieberman & a few others who are extremely unreliable when it comes to a more progressive agenda.

Repubs are famed for their solidarity & discipline- not surprising, the way they've purged the unbelievers from their ranks over the last 20 years. Dems are anything but, and represent a much broader cross section of political & economic thought than Repubs.

Hell, FDR couldn't have his own way when he had much, much larger majorities after the 1936 election, and that hasn't really changed.