The most respected investor and capitalist on the planet, Warren Buffett, took to the pages of the New York Times this morning to bust a myth that has dominated political discourse in recent months:

The idea that raising taxes on super-rich people would hurt the economy.

Buffett observes that his own personal taxes as a percent of his income have plummeted in the past decade, to all-time lows. He observes, as he has before, that he pays a much lower tax rate than his secretary. He calls out the absurdity of hedge-fund managers and other professional investors playing "long-term capital gains" rates on short-term trading profits.

And then he takes aim at the biggest rationale for preserving these astonishing tax breaks: The claim that, if taxes on deca-millionaire and billionaires were increased, these super-rich Americans would stop investing, thus clobbering the economy and hurting job growth:

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.

When presented with these facts, those who argue against tax increases on the super-rich--or, even more absurdly, for more tax cuts--often point to President Ronald Reagan, observing that he cut taxes for the wealthy, helping usher in a long economic boom.

This ignores the point that Reagan also raised taxes. And more importantly, it ignores how high tax rates on super-rich people were when Reagan cut them: In 1980, the top bracket was a startling 70%. It also ignores how Bill Clinton raised taxes and then took the US from the perpetual deficits of the Reagan years to a surplus. It ignores how George Bush cut taxes, plunged the budget back into a deficit, encouraged the wild borrowing spree that inflated the housing bubble, and then oversaw the worst recession since the Depression. It ignores how the US prospered all through the 1950s and 1960s, when marginal tax rates were super-high. And so on.

In short, it ignores almost all the economic data we have. And it appears to be based on a rigid ideology, rather than common sense.

Buffett, by the way, isn't proposing a blanket increase on today's entire top tax bracket, those making over $379,150, many of whom protest against the idea that they are "rich." Buffett is suggesting the implementation of two new brackets--one for taxpayers making over $1 million, of whom there are 237,000 in the country, and one for taxpayers making over $10 million, of whom there are only 8,000.

In other words, Buffett's tax-increase-on-the-super-rich would affect 1 in 1,253 Americans, less than 1/10th of 1% of the population.

Do you really think that would clobber the economy?

> Re: Buffett Blasts Low Taxes On Billionaires,

Some people say that there's a woman to blame, but I know, it's his own damn fault.

I am all for an additional 3-5% tax on folks making over $1M per year in combined income whether it is capital gains or whatever. But that will be individuals - what happens when they are incorporated, etc? Because then we are talking about applying this to corporations as well at some level. It seems though that right now everyone is going down a road toward lowering taxes on the corporations but possibly removing some of their current write-offs and perhaps giving them different ones.

But certainly, Buffet can always feel free to put his money where his mouth is and offer to pay additional taxes on his own to set an example.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I prefer Pinacoladaburg

Warren Buffett for president,,,

Source? Seems I've seen this before, a number of times.

This would be a great deal for Warrent Buffet as he has already made the majority of his money and a tax like the one he is proposing would not put in a dent in his fortune.

This isn't the first time he has made statements in this spirit. I seriously question the alturism here and have question if its really an ego & influance play? By increasing taxes on people with upward income mobility it inhibit or even prevent other individuals the opportunity to rival Buffets own wealth.

More Complete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Source? Seems I've seen this before, a number of
> times.


Warren Buffett, took to the pages of the New York Times this morning

FurfaxTownie Wrote:
By increasing taxes on people with
> upward income mobility it inhibit or even prevent
> other individuals the opportunity to rival Buffets
> own wealth.

In other words, Buffett's tax-increase-on-the-super-rich would affect 1 in 1,253 Americans, less than 1/10th of 1% of the population. ?????????

Buffet could cut a fat check to the US Treasury every year if he wanted, but instead, like most intelligent Americans, prefers to fund his own charities and be generous according to his own judgement.

I think Buffets a good guy, but I get tired of billioniares who seem to want to showcase their goodwill by using the IRS to squeeze others.

The truth is, the government is so fucking ineffecient that any program they are trying to fund gets a fraction of what they should after the money is filtered down and trickes in through the bureaucracy.

I'm fine with a tax increase, but as a show of good faith, these government leeches have to do some massive cuts-FIRST.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

More Complete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Source? Seems I've seen this before, a number of
> times.


That's because it's not the first time it's been said, nor the first time he said it.

And rather than speculate that this is some kind of master plan to increase his own fortune above all others could we at least consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, this one rich person is making a valid argument about taxes and their effects on investors and how the lower taxes have not had the effects we were told they would?

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


Correlation does not imply causation.

I actually agree with Buffett, but I don't think job creation is a result of higher taxes on the richies. I do think funding of our social programs could be helped by an increase in taxes on the richies.

Rich people have an image problem, people are jealous and envious.


None of them want to come out and say "Get off your ass. You will never have shit if you keep waiting on government or someone else. I worked hard- you should too"

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More Complete Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Source? Seems I've seen this before, a number
> of
> > times.
>
>
> Warren Buffett, took to the pages of the New York
> Times this morning

Link?

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rich people have an image problem, people are
> jealous and envious.
>
>
> None of them want to come out and say "Get off
> your ass. You will never have shit if you keep
> waiting on government or someone else. My parents worked
> hard so I could inherit my wealth and position - yours should have too"

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's because it's not the first time it's been
> said, nor the first time he said it.

Or because it's some bogus chain mail BS.

More Complete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Walker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's because it's not the first time it's
> been
> > said, nor the first time he said it.
>
> Or because it's some bogus chain mail BS.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2

It literally tells you where the piece appears in the first post.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-cod
> dling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2
>
> It literally tells you where the piece appears in
> the first post.

Would it have hurt to provide a link? Just trying to see if it's the same stuff that's been going around since this article in November of last year...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/warren-buffett-paying-more-taxes_n_786516.html

Apparently yes, he's been saying the same thing for some time. If he wants to pay more taxes, let him. Tell you what Buffy, just make a donation.

Did you read the whole thing???? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In other words, Buffett's
> tax-increase-on-the-super-rich would affect 1 in
> 1,253 Americans, less than 1/10th of 1% of the
> population. ?????????


I think Warren is up to more then what he's telling us and am posing a question. I don't necessarily believe my own premise.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Buffet could cut a fat check to the US Treasury
> every year if he wanted, but instead, like most
> intelligent Americans, prefers to fund his own
> charities and be generous according to his own
> judgement.
>
> I think Buffets a good guy, but I get tired of
> billioniares who seem to want to showcase their
> goodwill by using the IRS to squeeze others.
>
> The truth is, the government is so fucking
> ineffecient that any program they are trying to
> fund gets a fraction of what they should after the
> money is filtered down and trickes in through the
> bureaucracy.
>
> I'm fine with a tax increase, but as a show of
> good faith, these government leeches have to do
> some massive cuts-FIRST.


+1 Wind Nut

I'll go one step further. I'd be willing to a 10% tax hike on everyone, with one caveat - the increased revenue goes only for paying off the deficit and not into the general fund. I'd be willing to pay it, but it has to be on everyone, no exemptions. If you make $1,000 per year now and pay no taxes, you'd pay $100 in taxes. If you make $10 million, then you pay $1,000,000 in taxes. No distinction between captial gains, long or short term or any other tax dodges. Really, a flat tax on eveyrone.

It will never happen for a couple of reasons. First, who really beleives that Congress would be able to control themselves and not start dipping into the money to fund some absolutely, must have social program? The idea is not palpable to the idea of graduated tax rates. Oh well, I can only wish.

"I do think funding of our social programs could be helped by an increase in taxes on the richies."

THIS IS A BIG FAIL!

slubdawg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll go one step further. I'd be willing to a 10%
> tax hike on everyone, with one caveat - the
> increased revenue goes only for paying off the
> deficit and not into the general fund.

> First, who really beleives that Congress would be
> able to control themselves and not start dipping
> into the money to fund some absolutely, must have
> social program?

What does this mean? "Paying off the deficit" doesn't make any sense... debt is paid off, deficit is either reduced or increased. If you mean reduce the deficit, then you mean a tax increase with spending capped at 2011 budget levels. But even if that happened, new social programs could be launched as long as some other program was reduced in funding or eliminated so I'm not getting your argument here.

Miss-fire! Damn phone. anyway;

If you think Warren Buffet is going to participate in his version of "shared sacrifice" or "balanced approach" as the focus grouped term goes you're nuts.

This dude has ice water for blood and he won't do anything that won't benefit him financially.

He built his empire from the stress that the tax code put on many businesses.

I for example have recently turned 50. My accountant advised me that I may want to start buying more life insurance to offset tax liability if something were to happen to me. I want to leave my business to my eldest son when I finally set sail for good. So either I go the insurance route which is tax free or task my family with having to come up with an exorbitant amount of cash at my passing.

I think the code will be revised eliminating the so called Death tax but you still have to plan for the worst.

It use to be several million dollars was considered a lot of worth. I think it's funny how Obama says "millionaires and billionaires" like it is just a hop and a skip from one to the other.

Buffet's empire will end up making more money from a tax the rich scheme than he will ever have to pay by a long shot.

Liberals know this and are banking on the hope that there are just enough people ignorant enough about economics and the tax code to ram it through. No difference between this scam and the green energy BS he has thought about getting into. Buffet knows it's bullshit but if he can make another billion or two that's his goal. he doesn't give a rats ass if it's best for our society at large. The dude is a predator and he,s tricked the liberals into thinking he's one of them.

The fact still remains, you could confiscate every dime over one million dollars in income this year and have enough to finance the Federal Government for approximately 28 days. But hey if it would make some of you feel better it might be worth it. Of course you most likely wouldn't have a job after that. At least in the private sector anyway. And the "Obama cash would run out for the rest shortly thereafter.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2011 05:58PM by mcsmack.

Bush skewed the system of taxing employment income when he lowered tax rates for capital gains and dividends in the name of encouraging investment and ending double taxation of dividends. Some peole can control the form in which they and their employees receive their compensation, thereby favoring compensation in company shares while others cannot.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miss-fire! Damn phone. anyway;
>
> If you think Warren Buffet is going to participate
> in his version of "shared sacrifice" or "balanced
> approach" as the focus grouped term goes you're
> nuts.
>
> This dude has ice water for blood and he won't do
> anything that won't benefit him financially.
>
> He built his empire from the stress that the tax
> code put on many businesses.
>
> I for example have recently turned 50. My
> accountant advised me that I may want to start
> buying more life insurance to offset tax liability
> if something were to happen to me. I want to leave
> my business to my eldest son when I finally set
> sail for good. So either I go the insurance route
> which is tax free or task my family with having to
> come up with an exorbitant amount of cash at my
> passing.
>
> I think the code will be revised eliminating the
> so called Death tax but you still have to plan for
> the worst.
>
> It use to be several million dollars was
> considered a lot of worth. I think it's funny how
> Obama says "millionaires and billionaires" like it
> is just a hop and a skip from one to the other.
>
> Buffet's empire will end up making more money from
> a tax the rich scheme than he will ever have to
> pay by a long shot.
>
> Liberals know this and are banking on the hope
> that there are just enough people ignorant enough
> about economics and the tax code to ram it
> through. No difference between this scam and the
> green energy BS he has thought about getting into.
> Buffet knows it's bullshit but if he can make
> another billion or two that's his goal. he doesn't
> give a rats ass if it's best for our society at
> large. The dude is a predator and he,s tricked the
> liberals into thinking he's one of them.
>
> The fact still remains, you could confiscate every
> dime over one million dollars in income this year
> and have enough to finance the Federal Government
> for approximately 28 days. But hey if it would
> make some of you feel better it might be worth it.
> Of course you most likely wouldn't have a job
> after that. At least in the private sector anyway.
> And the "Obama cash would run out for the rest
> shortly thereafter.


Exhorbitant estate tax! What tax code are you reading?

Do some research on Buffetts insurance companies. It easy to be generous with other peoples money.

tax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Miss-fire! Damn phone. anyway;
>
> > And the "Obama cash would run out for the rest
> > shortly thereafter.
>
>
> Exhorbitant estate tax! What tax code are you
> reading?

Currently a 5 million exclusion with a top rate of 35%. You couple this with what ever state you live in charges and wallah! You may wind up having to come up with more than an ass load of cash if you want to keep the business in the family.

The lion's share of my estate is in the business itself and not in cash. so I have rat holed a lot of cash mostly in insurance to compensate for the tax burden. Right now there is no estate tax levied in Florida but as you know, the only certain thing about taxes is the uncertainty.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rich people have an image problem, people are
> jealous and envious.
>
>
> None of them want to come out and say "Get off
> your ass. You will never have shit if you keep
> waiting on government or someone else. I worked
> hard- you should too"


I say that all the time.

Only problem is I'm not rich.

Let's get it straight. If you dont learn anything else today, learn and remember this. This country does not have a progressive tax rate. For those of you who do not know what progressive means, it means when you earn more money you pay more as a percent of your income. So, what i am saying is, this country does not collect more money (as a percent of income) from the rich then we do from the poor. We have a regressive tax system.

Tax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's get it straight. If you dont learn anything
> else today, learn and remember this. This country
> does not have a progressive tax rate. For those
> of you who do not know what progressive means, it
> means when you earn more money you pay more as a
> percent of your income. So, what i am saying is,
> this country does not collect more money (as a
> percent of income) from the rich then we do from
> the poor. We have a regressive tax system.


You are an exact example of the ignorance Buffet banks on every day to make his billions while grinding dolts like you into sausage. Congratulations on your clueless state of awareness. It must be nice going through life so blissfully simple minded. Accomplishment and SELF fulfillment isn't everything to most people so I wouldn't let it bother you. Just keep holding that hand out.

"Example of ignorance"? Arent you obligated to explain how I may be ignorant? It is a fact that the middle class and poor pay more taxes (as a percent of income) then the rich do. Add on top of that sales taxes, real estate taxes and it gets even worse for the middle class and poor.

Please Mr. Genious explain to me how I am ignorant.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tax Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > mcsmack Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Miss-fire! Damn phone. anyway;
> >
> > > And the "Obama cash would run out for the
> rest
> > > shortly thereafter.
> >
> >
> > Exhorbitant estate tax! What tax code are you
> > reading?
>
> Currently a 5 million exclusion with a top rate of
> 35%. You couple this with what ever state you live
> in charges and wallah! You may wind up having to
> come up with more than an ass load of cash if you
> want to keep the business in the family.
>
> The lion's share of my estate is in the business
> itself and not in cash. so I have rat holed a lot
> of cash mostly in insurance to compensate for the
> tax burden. Right now there is no estate tax
> levied in Florida but as you know, the only
> certain thing about taxes is the uncertainty.


So, you have a business worht over $5million and you are worried your estate will have to come up with some cash! Boo hoo! I am sure you will figure something out an your family will do just fine....boo hoo! Boo hoo, I am rich! You as, you dont know how lucky you are.

Tax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Example of ignorance"? Arent you obligated to
> explain how I may be ignorant? It is a fact that
> the middle class and poor pay more taxes (as a
> percent of income) then the rich do. Add on top of
> that sales taxes, real estate taxes and it gets
> even worse for the middle class and poor.
>
> Please Mr. Genious explain to me how I am
> ignorant.

You are just plain wrong. Even on percentages. you believe and promote a popular lie. The fact is the wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

You subscribe to false information that suits your agenda. there is nothing I can show you that will persuade you otherwise. You have made a conscious decision to not only be misinformed but spread misinformation.

As was stated earlier, confiscating every cent of income from tax payers over $250,000,000 wouldn't fund the government 30 days. Maybe that confused you so here is a video that will help put it in perspective. It is very elementary and easy to understand. I know you'll never change but take a look anyway..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ&feature=youtu.be

Income tax does not pay all the bills, there are assloads of taxes EVERYONE pays,,
Attachments:

And were does it go?
Attachments:

No one is saying that taxes will solve thedeficit problem. But it will help and it is the right thing to do.

But again for the record, the money to run this country isnt paid by the rich. It is paid by the working poor (as a percentage of income), the middle class. Fat cats like you just buy the lies. Buy the protection. Buy the country.

true that

Quote

But certainly, Buffet can always feel free to put his money where his mouth is and offer to pay additional taxes on his own to set an example.

i guess giving away 40 billion dollars to the gates foundation wasn't good enough...

yes, the rich pay more of our total tax revenue. maybe it's because they have all the f***ing money.

keep arguing back and forth -- within a generation the middle class will be gone.

I don't think it's going to take a generation,,,

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those
> below the median income level—now earn 13
> percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of
> the taxes.


Those lucky bastards!

Tax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one is saying that taxes will solve thedeficit
> problem. But it will help and it is the right
> thing to do.
>
> But again for the record, the money to run this
> country isnt paid by the rich. It is paid by the
> working poor (as a percentage of income), the
> middle class. Fat cats like you just buy the
> lies. Buy the protection. Buy the country.

Again you are misinformed.

Not only do higher-income taxpayers pay more total dollars in taxes, but they pay about twice the percentage of their incomes in taxes than do lower-income households.

Data from both the Tax Foundation and New York Times show that the top 20 percent of taxpayers pay about 33 percent to 35 percent of their incomes in taxes. In contrast, the taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent pay an average of only 13 percent to 17 percent of their incomes in all taxes.

Middle-income households pay about 25 percent to 28 percent of their incomes in taxes.

How, then, can those in the "tax the rich" coalition stand by claims that the rich pay a lower percentage of their incomes in taxes than the middle class?

They cherry pick data and ignore all federal taxes paid by citizens, poor and rich alike. They ignore the 20 percent of spending funded by federal tax dollars, the state and local tax payments by filers to other states, and the state and local taxes paid by nonresidents.

After omitting all those details, an act that at best presents an incomplete argument and at worse a misleading one, they assert that the rich pay a lower percentage of their incomes in taxes than everybody else.

In short, the claim that tax code redistributes income from the poor to the rich is ridiculous and is purposefully misleading. President Obama playing the class envy card in collusion with his willing accomplices in the media supply the oxygen to keep the outright lie alive but here is the truth.



I know you won't believe official IRS statistics either so I'm not sure why I even try with people like you except to make you an example of poor data analysis leading to false conclusions. My guess is you are in the bottom 50% @ 2.9%. That's fair now isn't it?

Oh and one more thing... Warren Buffet says he paid a lesser percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary??

Mr. Buffet needs to release his 2010 return to the public to prove it. But he won't because he is lying.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2011 10:57PM by mcsmack.

The Minnesota Free Market Institute wouldn't lie.

You are such a dumb fuck! I have been talking percentiles. The reason they pay twice the amount of taxes is because they earn 10 times more then we do.

Plus in your charts, they address only income taxes and ignore payroll taxes.

Top 1% pay 12.24% ?

I should be supporting this tax rate for the billionaires?