Warren Buffet On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 09. 2024
- Warren Buffet and Bill Gates discuss why a flat tax would be a mistake, how taxes on the wealthiest Americans are too low, and how the tax system has been tipped totally in favor of the wealthy. From a 2005 program on Nebraska public television.
![Naval Ravikant - The 4 BIGGEST TRAPS in Life that You NEED to GET OUT [w/ Charlie Munger]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2bL5JHKf16k/mqdefault.jpg)
Not paying enough in taxes? So I take it both of these gentlemen are just claiming the standard deduction on their tax forms, and don't have a team of accountants and tax attorneys looking for every loophole possible to avoid paying their "fare share".
cristoballs Yh and he is asking to close these loopholes close and shutdown the possibility to tax we do our best to get around but this only works if its legal as long as it is legal nothing can stop us.
What I'm saying is if Mr. Buffet wanted to pay more taxes, he would hire himself as an employee. Then he would be paying 35% individual rates,and 15% payroll taxes. Instead, he "games" the system by taking all of his income as qualified dividends and long-term cap gains. He has 100% choice in how he takes his income.
To me,it seems hypocritical to preach for more taxes,while simultaneously evading taxes. The IRS may have rules,but I don't think you understand the flexibility of those rules. =/
How refreshing to see this coming out of the mouths of 1%ers.
I have to admit. The only thing I really like about him is that he is honest about his and others income and taxes.
Great point on including the 35% corporate tax rate. This point is especially poignant for small business owners like me, who essentially ARE their business. Any tax increase on the business side is a direct tax increase on me and my family, even sales tax, which must also be subtracted from total sales. If I can't get my customers to pay increased costs, it comes right out of my income. =/
He is talking about marginal income tax, which is separate from corporate taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, qualified dividend taxes, regular dividend taxes, capital gains taxes, transfer taxes, and inheritance taxes. =)
Like i said, we need a much simpler tax code. =/
I can't help but notice that he always comments on the tax rates. He says little of the actual dollar amounts those tax rates generate. I also wonder how much of what he says is PR.
It is amazing to hear two of the wealthiest men in the world have this discussion.
"as a small business owner, why would you want to go back to Bush economics?"
I am a HUGE critic of Mr Bush as well. As a small business owner all i want, is to be left alone. No new mandates, no new taxes, cuts or raises. I want predictability. I want to know that next year I'm not going to have to "find" a bunch of money to give to a new Federal program. These decisions affect me and my family directly, and activism at the Federal level makes me nervous.
Forgive me for venting. =/
Business owners have almost total control in how they earn their income. For small business owners,we get to decide how much we receive through payroll, versus how much we receive in distributions. The income I take on distributions is exempt from 15% payroll taxes (so i pay 25%, instead of 40%). For big capital,like Mr Buffet, there is even more wiggle room,as entities exchange assets and liquidity keeping the wealth in circulation and only withdrawing it when it is taxed at its lowest point =/
Tax avoidance planners are seizing on distortions in our current federal estate tax law, and the insane distortions in this law have rendered the estate tax virtually defenseless against a competent planner.
You aren't the first person to respond with this, and I think that it is awesome that many billionaires become philanthropists. However, that doesn't diminish the hypocrisy of declaring that his taxes are too low, while simultaneously using every loophole in the system to avoid paying taxes. It's like telling everyone they should be vegetarian, while eating a steak. If Mr Buffet wanted to donate more to public social systems, he could, but he chooses voluntary contribution, which i support. =)
payroll tax, ie social security, is not a tax - it is a mandated savings plan. like it or dislike it, but it's not the same as a normal tax.
As long as the majority of your income comes in the form of a paycheck (W2 income), most people pay close to the tax rates assigned to their tax brackets. Most of the people that make 250K to 350K, for example are small business owners, doctors, lawyers (small town:)). They are employees of their own sub-s corporations which report 0 profit because everythings is either paid out in expenses/ overhead or salaries. So the owners are employees getting W2 taxable income.
it's no loophole. trust the IRS to take the maximum they can possibly take.
if you are the owner of a company that pays 35 % taxes, you basically pay it, and you haven't gotten any cashflow.
to actually get it you will pay additional 15%
total 50% of your profits.
if you want the company to reinvest and "grow" you eventually you will pay "additional 15% capital gains taxes on the "growth.
50% both ways
mr. buffet has never sold a stock to my opinion. so he basically never uses this "loophole"
In defense of the “flat tax” - The fact is that a “flat” income tax would tax my dollars exactly the same as Mr. Buffet’s dollars. Likewise, a true “flat” tax would already include nifty things like my payroll taxes. Also, a true “flat” income tax would also include (as income subject to tax) Mr. Buffet’s corporate jet, company limo, etc. Such a change would go a long way in leveling the playing field between rich and poor, which every American I’ve ever talked to deeply desires.
As far as the expiring Bush tax cuts, i would agree with you in almost any other year. The global economy is in a precarious position, and we still face the possibility of a double-dip recession. I am nervous to make any drastic changes that might affect decisions in the market. While I think that allowing the cuts to expire is the best decision in the long-run, I'm not sure now is the time.
@bluescrubby I don't think anyone has talked about trickle down in a long time. Now, no one assumes that wealth is going to be passed down. The idea is that a business that is getting hit with high healthcare costs, falling stock value, low asset (real estate value) higher payouts in workers compensation, greater fiscal liability, tax increases, greater regualtion, difficulty borrowing money....doesn't exactly create a business environment where businesses want to expand and hire.
@kzearo
Look at their history. Both bill and warren donated billions to charity.
lol, judging from the way the guy phrased that question, I would guess that he is in support of a flat tax system. I love their answer, especially how warren buffet explained how "fair tax" isnt really fair.
@TheMagickseeker With all due respect, what the Federal income tax is now is a rate that goes up in increments according to the amount of taxable income, up to 35%. What I was proposing is to set 3 solid rates as I pointed to earlier (instead of someone who makes 45K paying 16.39% of their income, they would pay only 10%). If done correctly (maybe setting the rates at 15%, 25%, and 35%), it would bring in more revenue than the current system.
I am a small "l" libertarian,so I don't align well with Liberals, or righties. Fed revenue is at the lowest percentage to GDP ratio in decades,so i think there is room for tax increases. However,while tax increases will certainly help,I believe that the root of the problem is on the spending side and many of the promises made in DC are unsustainable. If we want to preserve Social Sec and Medicare, those systems will need reform. At least medicare,which represents most of our unfunded liabilities
very progressive of them, honest and thoughtful, I' totally agree, rich should pay a more in tax, the fact they aren't stinks to high haven.
his example is to donate 90% of his wealth, so I don't find this hypocritical. The fact that he could pay more taxes is not the issue. The issue at hand is a tax code that does not mandate it.
HA! Great points! I think when I add up all the state, local, and federal taxes, i could get taxed upwards of 58% of the income I generate in my business. The only thing i will add is, I have never paid that much because I arrange the income to be taxed at "almost" its lowest rate. I HAVE to do this to prevent government from looting my family for 60%. I take half my income as regular income, which is more than I can say for Mr. Buffet, who seemingly decides to take none that way. =/
I totally agree with both of them -- The income taxes for the wealthy need to be higher than the lower income brackets we have in our society. I remember distinctly having to pay taxes one year because I broke into a higher bracket, then each year thereafter I received a refund after that even though my income had become higher than the year before. I still claimed the same deductions throughout those years and each one became higher and higher as well. I will say that in the years before the increase in pay, I received a higher refund than any I received after the increase.
+dzwingo I need your tax accountant because I am getting bent over apparently
@ATA030 The last ten years worth of cuts have cost your country nearly 2 trillion in revenue. Easy to see why:
In 1992, the top 400 reported incomes 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 ($227.4 million on average per person) but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
Income +437%. Taxes -26%.
Ack...I have poor syntax, the "you" was meant in a general sense, I wasnt pointing to you specifically =)
I agree that investment income should be taxed at the same rate as wages. By closing loopholes, we can lower overall rates to maintain a competitiveness. The improved efficiency would also be excellent
The only "loophole" I'd allow in a flat progressive tax system,is those dollars that ordinary people are saving for retirement;double-taxation was the justification for special rates anyway.
yeah. i totally understand and concur. instead of trying to figure who should pay the taxes, why not to simply reduce the goverment. the govenment likes it when different groups try to blames the other, since it removes attention from the one group that really screws everybody up - the government.
I'm not so sure that would be the way to go but it's certainly better than what we have now.
We need a Flat Tax, not marginal increased taxes
Bill Gates is a great philanthropist. Coming from WA State, I saw how much he donated to the school system. My school district had about two-three computers per student and that was in the late 90's. Bill donated a lot of money towards my school and many others. He offered grants to graduating seniors from lower income households. Basically a full ride scholarship to any University (it just had to be in WA.)
@0gods That is true, but according to dept of LI stats on SEIU website, union workers get higher pay, better benefits, more vacation...not to mention previously stated debacle regarding difficulty of releasing incompetant workers. Why would a business from a profits perspective choose union run facility over non-union run facility. And if all states are "right to work states" (which is at this point consitutionally not feasible) doesn't that hurt even more our ability to compete by globally?
I think that is awesome, many billionaires are philanthropists. But that doesn't diminish the hypocrisy of demanding that his taxes are too low, while simultaneously using every loophole possible to avoid paying taxes. It's like telling everyone they should be vegetarian, while eating a steak. =/
@breakingdelaw
Yes and my point is that they should continue to do exactly that!
Private philanthropy is far more noble and creative than the coerced and incompetent redistribution of wealth conducted by the state. More importantly still, it is far more successful in getting results.
@0gods In addition, I have heard members of both parties agree that getting people back to work, is the best way to generate revenue for the government. So we find ourselves in a "which came first chicken or egg scenario." How do we come down hard on business and expect to create jobs in private sector? More jobs= more money spent in stores but people can't get work if employers aren't hiring. Creating govt jobs via infrastructure doesn't stop loss of jobs in private sector.
@Syntexz The exact thing what makes the dutch system superiour is that 'income tax' not only taxes salery, but also 'gain from intrest' for example a stock-portfolio.
So you can nog skip tax by simply investing your money, the gain on this stock also count as income, hence no way to 'duck and cover' the income tax.
That said every country should use a sliding scale, .. .
@DaithiDublin as far as overvaluing their worth, many of the middle rich are small business owners. This means that their wealth creates jobs and provides some even with healthcare benefits for them and their families. Each of their employees is paid a wage which is in turn taxed by the goverment. That is why they are revenue generators. For that reason alone, they should be valued.
@SamAshdotcom
It really depends on where you live. If you live in a city, it's not rich at all. If you live in the country, you can be a king. I think there should be a cost of living consideration but I don't know how that could be done. I'd say though that making over a million would be rich universally for sure.
@perrycm1 oops correction... "All" refers to those on both sides of the aisle, not all contributions" We know that not all contributions are on the up and up.
So true. Once you achieve the level of wealth as Mr Gates or Mr Buffet,policy changes matter little. If they believed that their wealth were threatened by a looting bureaucracy, they would just move their wealth out of reach of the gov, as scores of wealthy people have done for centuries
Youre right,the largest benefit of tax cuts is reducing the barriers of entry for new entrepreneurs. Most millionaires started from very humble begins, and we must preserve those opportunities for the next gen.
@theeponym The problem with the last 11 years (minus 2006 and 2007) is that the US government has routinely and enormously spent more money than it has taken in. Increasing taxes on the rich (which has already been done, since their taxes have gone up every year for 5 years) won't help unless the US Government (including Bush and the GOP 2004-2006 and Obama and the Democrats 2009-2010) puts a cap on spending and sticks to it. and applies significant cuts to programs.
10% Flat TAX is the Answer
Agreed
Why is the answer always "higher taxes"? Why is "slashing Gov't spending" never an option on the table? It should be, the Gov't does more than it was ever Constitutionally allowed to do.
@perrycm1 although I had a friend who is a tax attorney tell me that the reason they put millionaires and billionaires in the same tax bracket as those making 365K is because there are not enough millionaires...the current tax code does not recoup enough of their money (loopholes); they need to extend it down to lower incomes to include more people and result in enough money to generate significant tax revenue. Politically speaking, no one is going to feel bad for someone making 365K
@perrycm1 the debate over income tax has been a method of score keeping for both parties...and generates some governement revenue but not enough for what we need. It shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip. Our family courts recognized this to be issue... that is why in divorce proceedings, assets are always divided before custody is awarded, so the kids can't be used as bargaining chips for joint assets. We should have straight up or down votes on policies of this magnitude.
@perrycm1 same study looked statistically at economic conditions during specific presidencies. The analysis showed historicall U.S. economies did best when a (D) was president with a (R) house. It makes sense, during those times no one party can swing pendulum to far in one direction. I recently read an article that pointed out that economic growth occurred when government enacted policies that were win/win for business/citzens. Sooo...so much for ideology.
@feralcamero I can only imagine that the science to which you are referring is economic analysis over the course of history. I have seen science, then, to support both sides. A scientific approach is breaking down the problem, applying solutions, benchmarking them and tweaking for success. As a socially liberal fiscal conservative, I see myself as someone who doesn't follow the pack. The fatal mistake is picking the team you want to win and failing to see its misgivings.
Wow Einstein, you're right. These 2 billionaire entrepreneurs have no idea what they are saying. Everyone should listen to you.
I mostly agree with you here, but it is difficult to develop policy that accommodates both fairness, and equal treatment under the law. Special tax rates were developed for investment because for normal people investment is paid for with after-tax dollars. It seems like a reasonable system to not double-tax grandma's 401k. However, when your entire income is investment based, like Mr Buffets, then I agree that it is unfair to treat that income in the same fashion as Grandma's savings. =)
Paul Ryan's path to prosperity is probably an overly bold plan. In my experience, politicians always over-reach a bit with their initial proposals, it gives them room to negotiate for votes. The result is typically a watered down version of the original, and I suspect Mr Ryan's plan will fall victim to the same moderation. As messy as it is, our system of government works to balance different interests. But its entertaining (and frightening) to watch the system stumble along. =)
Tax brackets, we have tax brackets. We all pay the same taxes up to a certain amount of money, then as the amounts get larger, we pay more on that money. The poor are struggling and rather than take what we can from them, making the income tax equal, why not give them tax breaks? It's a lot better than giving them more entitlement programs.
@theeponym sorry, I still don't think the argument is whether or not they are comfortable or "livin large." The argument is are they paying their fair share of taxes. At 250K, it is highly unlikely that their income is mainly capital gains like Warren buffet...which means they are paying their fair share of taxes, which is higher than people that make less than them. If you let Bush TC expire, it doesn't solve the problem WB is addressing.
@GManNickG that is true, but they are getting on tv demanding that the government tax them more. Wouldn't being able to say that they did pay extra to the government prove that they were really interested in helping? Symbolic? A good example?
@theeponym That is true from the total percentage of what they earn. However, even at their lower tax rates and their capital gains tax revenue, it would take me 20 years at what I get paid to put into the tax system for what they put in the system in 1 year. Do you see what I'm saying? The rich could pay more, but that doesn't really help the situation as a whole. Please understand, I'm not against the rich not paying taxes (which they should). It just isn't a long term solution.
@0gods RE: study, I would not waste my time on a study that wasn't comprehensive. The study also looked at the effects of rapid advancement of technology during which time businesses invest in technology over people attempting in attempts to have 1 person do the work previously performed by 2. Plus advances in communication has made it easier for companies to move certain divisions offshore. Study showed that rapid advances in tech, increased unemployment and decreased job creation.
@jrroelle its really important that you read the post that came before this, because without it, only jrroelle and i understand its deeper meaning.
IT IS NOT ABOUT MORE OR LESS GOVERNMENT, OTS ABOUT BETTER, MORE EFFICIENT GOVT.
@perrycm1
Both of my parents don't make 250K combined and they managed to send all 3 kids to college. I'd say 250K is comfortable no matter where you live, individually that is. Some people get screwed with tax brackets. No one's arguing that. I'd reform it if I could but I'm an engineering major so I don't know too much about tax code. The problem, from where I see it, is not that we are taxed too much, it's that we aren't efficient and smart enough with the money, as a nation that is.
I agree that the tax code should be simplified, as I stated in my original post. Your other points make little sense as a counter to hypocrisy. I'm a small business owner, and I get to dchoose how I get paid. I can receive wages, and pay FICA/FUTA and Income tax, or, i can pay myself through shareholder distributions, and totally avoid the 15% tax. Both pathways are legal and within the law, why doesn't Mr Buffet pay himself as an employee of Berkshire Hathaway? Simple, he is evading taxes =)
@0gods Re. your advice, my backround is research and I welcome any data that adds to the debate, but I won't automatically disregard data as propaganda. Although tax decreases may spur the economy temporarily and tax increases increase revenue, they do little to ensure the "trickling down" of wealth. The theory is that a capable govt can use that revenue to sculpt policy to help the disparity of income while not hurting our ability to compete globally...both generate revenue.
@perrycm1 There are people that get screwed in the tax bracket assignments. I don't think it needs to be that way. And I don't think people paying the highest marginal rate in our country should be the small businesses owners responsible for creating jobs. People don't realize that increasing income tax rates on the rich doesn't put a significant dent in collecting money from the uber-rich, anyway.
@perrycm1 Governments increase taxes in times when they need revenue. The reasons are justifications, not theory projecting economic growth. Justifications that masquerade as economic theory are doomed to not hold up over time.
First point, millionaires have never paid more than 30% of their income in taxes, regardless of the tax rate. It is the difference between marginal and effective tax rates. Second point, the world today is very different from the 1970s, emerging markets in the developing world provide for lucrative investment opportunites. In a global market, taxes rates matter big time, and if your rates aren't competitive, then you lose investment, unless you can offset the burden with crony capitalism. =/
I don't know Mr Buffett's specific tax planning, but considering he pays less effective rate than 25%, I would assume that most of his income is taxed at the long-term capital gains rate (15%), which is also exempt from payroll taxes. Essentially, he chooses to "withdrawal" his liquidity(cash income) as qualified dividends and asset sales. If he has held these assets for as little as a year, he qualifies for long-term capital gains.
It is a complicated and corrupt tax system. =(
First, thank you for replying respectfully. Believe me everyone getting a paycheck that doesn't live off of dividends and Capital Gains worries about how they are going to afford to send their kids to college. Our money is doing nothing in their 529s and they are forcasting that it is going to cost 200K per child by the time my kids get there.
@0gods This is just a thought, but maybe, it is the theory that was wrong to begin with. Maybe that makes sense if one is referring to corporate tax, but Warren buffet didn't use a lot of infrastruction to make investments and live off of capital gains/ dividends...the primary source of his income.
AH! they mention taxes that will never affect them, but do harm people attempting to increase their net worth.
@perrycm1 plus the middle rich have not influence in this country. They are not numerous enough or wealthy enough to have lobbyists and certainly not numerous enough to make up any prominent voting block. That is why the middle rich have the highest marginal tax rate in the land.
@0gods I am curious what the wage differential is for IT customer service and software designers is, specifically. Leibermans analysis mentioned that although we have huge loss in manufacturing sector in respect to offshoring, the impact of the losses in IT and science/ engineering have greater economic consequences.
@ATA030 I am assuming that you mean that would be the tax rate on all income including investment income and capital gains. Under your plan, some people making over 250K would actually see a tax decrease. How about more tax brackets and closing loopholes. It seems silly that Warren buffet is in the same tax bracket as a small town lawyer, who actually has to worry about how he's going to generate enough income to pay his staff's salaries and benefits.
@0gods The higher salary vs wage, is probably overtime and benefits. Admittedly, most of the reading I have done are in regards to wages in china. However, not sure how you are defining IT professionals. Liebermans analysis cited major problems in loss of IT jobs to a more educated, plentiful, lower paid candidate pool. He cited that China graduates a higher number and percentage of engineers and that an American company could get a qualified engineer for a $15,000 per year salary.
@RonaldeRobinson Unless you are making a minimum of 1 Million/yr, then they are staying out of your pockets. Warren usually qualifies the statement with something like the top 1%. Which right now, is people with incomes over 1 Million. .
What I'm trying to say is that business owners have a LOT of choice in how they receive their income. Mr. Buffet loathes the idea that he pays less effective tax rates than his secretary, yet HE is the one who decided to use every loophole to avoid paying taxes. Imo, this is hypocritical, and he would improve his policy position if he practiced what he preached. It's like telling everyone they should be vegetarian, while eating a steak. =/
Thanks for your civil comment. =)
Why don't they just pay more taxes if they favor raising taxes? We have no jobs for young people in part because high taxes have driven jobs overseas. Gates and Buffett should just pay more if they want---stay out of our pockets.
You are a little misinformed. The warren buffets of the world earn most of their income in capital gains taxed at 15%. His marginal tax rate was 17%. The middle rich, 250K to 500K, are taxed largely on income tax rates. They are taxed at 37% to 39% of their paycheck income...way higher than warren buffet's marginal rate. WB favors increase in income taxes, but that increase is not going to affect him that much. I wonder how he feels about increasing CG significantly like 39%?
@0gods We also have equal opportunity hegemony in this country. I just read a study looking at world economies from 1990 to 2000 which showed powerful trade unions had a negative impact on job creation. Or how about the hegemony of the lawyers in this country. In europe, non economic damages are capped and plantiffs are held financially responsible for frivolous lawsuits. Our country, in turn, becomes increasingly litigious.
Buffet makes his wealth from capital gains, unlike the vast majority of people. The US tax rate on capital gains is not particularly low compared with other countries.
Hey hey, trickle down ok? Trickle down. Love getting trickled down on. Republican fo' life here.
@rgaud8 If you make 250K, you still have to worry about retirement and how you are going to send your kids to college. Many are unaware that over 250K you get fewer traditional deductions. For example, each of your kids might only be worth $100. So besides having higher income tax bracket you also get fewer deductions....until you get so rich that the majority of you income comes in the form of Capital Gains, then you get more tax breaks.
if you love taxes then pay it but dont force other people to give their work money to the irs
@0gods What really puts pressure on the ability to see wage growth in times of recession (when job growth is decreasing/ unemployment high)... it limits the leverage of unions, workforces, individuals to use their leverage to improve wages with threat of lay-offs looming in the back of their minds. I have not developed my solutions for these problems yet but am currently reading a proposal by Joe Lieberman, which so far shows alot of promise.
@sweetgreggo actually it does make a big difference. I compared tax returns with a friend of mine once. She was pissed that my tax bracket was only 6% points higher than hers. She made about $90,000 per year. She thought that we weren't paying fair share b/c of Obama's comments. Our income is straight paycheck, no CG. After deductions and returns, she paid $12K in taxes (20%). We paid 110K (34%). She was shocked and apologized for accusing me of being a rich tax dodger.
This country is wealthy enough to afford it and if you tax the poorest more, then more will require more assistance when health problems arise and can't feed their family properly. Tax over 1mil income and capital gains more.
@ATA030 Except you're missing out on the very point they were making: income tax itself is the loophole. It's all people think about because it hits home most for them. But for the wealthy like them, they barely pay income tax because it's only a small part of their earnings. Most of what they earn is in capital gains, which is taxed very modestly. So in the end, their "income" is taxed lower than you and I.
@0gods who funded a study is always a concern, which I am going to have to go back and find if you really want it, but one usually scrutinizes statistical confidence level, sample number, etc. to decide whether or not result can be considered valid. I'll get back to you on that.
@Phillysoc he purposely choose to use a loophole to pay a lower tax. if he want to pay higher taxes just tell his firm to stop fighting IRS, or just simply write a check to the treasury, there's not a single law will prevent you or him doing that. why do think a lot of rich ceo choose to pay themslves a low salary
@MsOxygengirl I have never heard my conservative friends say that the poor are to blame for this country's ills. Why are you not holding your elected officials responsible. Problems 1. Jobs 2. Stock Market 3. Real estate market. Tell me who is to blame for that?
He’s wrong. Taxes are too high for everyone.
@broccolifan1 You are right. It does "suck", but I remain hopeful that people will use videos/ comments such at this one to gain knowledge, weigh the arguments...hence, solutions. My hopes, regardless of how entertaining your comment was, rely on the premise that people will engage in civil discussion. I believe that we the people have more similarities than differences and that political rhetoric divides us... which benefits no one but politicians and their reelection efforts.
@0gods I do understand what you are saying, but it certainly did not refute the"pendulum" finding of the over 100 page historical analysis dating back to before the great depression that I took the time to read...it is a definition.
@SamAshdotcom It's better off than most people. All the people I know that make that much, live in gated communites and drive porsches. I think they can handle it.
@perrycm1 It's not propaganda. The report following the downgrade by Standard and Poors specifically blames the Tea Party for being being fiscally irresponsible.
By the way, the tax of the "rich" people who make $200,000 goes directly to the ultra-rich. That's the part they leave out!
@TonyAbney I don't need to fact check , because I know you are wrong. If you make 250K and that income is straight paycheck income, not Captal Gains, not investment income, You pay more than those that make less than you because A you are in a higher tax bracket and B because you qualify for fewer traditonal income tax deductions. Although you may have more interest deductions, you are disqualified from many of deductions based on the fact that you make too much money.
@LonestarHandee How much do you make in a year? How much do/did your parents make in a year? Over 250,000? If not, it doesn't affect you or them. If it is over 250,000, I think you can manage with a few more % points worth of income tax when this country is crumbling.
With respect, Warren Buffet's point is the loopholes should be gone! Perhaps he ir Bill Gates can willingly give more money if they choose, however the point is not all of the wealthy will do the right thing. They're arguing that the loopholes that the government left need to be removed by the government therefore everyone pays the same rate. That's what I'm getting from this anyway.
I agree the tax code needs fixing but Mr Buffet has made all his money from these loop holes, its sweet to hear an 80 yr old man at the end of his earning life say o yea, now we should be taxing the heck out of the wealthiest americans. Again man is brilliant but if he has to much money he can pay the gov't what he feels he owes, I am sure the next Warren Buffets couldnt disagree more with him.
you can tell by the questioner's expression that this was the last response he expected to hear
go bill and warren...get the message out there!
It is not a fair comparison, because business owners have a lot of choice in how they receive their income. Mr Buffet could pay himself as an employee, just like his secretary, and pay the same rates she does. I'm sure you would agree that Mr. Buffets policy position would be strengthened if he practiced what he preached? You do realize that Berkshire Hathaway was in recent litigation to avoid paying billions in taxes, yes? =/
All that said, I am a huge advocate of tax reform. =)
Wait, are you saying that he should NOT take deductions that are expected by the IRS on his money? If you said that to anybody that actually prepares taxes, they would say to you, WTH are you going on about. The IRS has rules, and you follow them, and I might ADD that both Bill Gates and Buffet are some two of the greatest philanthropists of our time, so what ARE you talking about?