Op Ed From Warren Buffett

[hblask 1]

It's not just Buffet. I keep hearing that some vast majority of Americans wants taxes to go up, yet basically 0% of them take up the government's offer to voluntarily raise their own taxes.Actions speak louder than words. If everyone who *said* they wanted taxes higher would throw in an extra 10 or 20% of their income each year, it would make a huge dent in the deficit.When I am given the chance to opt out of government retirement along with opting out of my SS tax, I will happily put my money where my mouth is and opt out of the system and be responsible for myself at retirement. I expect similar commitment to beliefs from those who always want more government.But it's not higher taxes anyone wants, including Buffet. It's higher taxes *on others*.

[vbnautilus 48]

It's not just Buffet. I keep hearing that some vast majority of Americans wants taxes to go up, yet basically 0% of them take up the government's offer to voluntarily raise their own taxes.Actions speak louder than words. If everyone who *said* they wanted taxes higher would throw in an extra 10 or 20% of their income each year, it would make a huge dent in the deficit.

It's basically a prisoner's dilemma though; raising my own taxes isn't going to help if everyone doesn't also do it. The way to collectively raise taxes is to change the law, not to make individual choices and hope they catch on.Again, the position that taxes should be raised is fully compatible with not voluntarily paying more prior to the change in tax law.

[hblask 1]

It's basically a prisoner's dilemma though; raising my own taxes isn't going to help if everyone doesn't also do it. The way to collectively raise taxes is to change the law, not to make individual choices and hope they catch on.Again, the position that taxes should be raised is fully compatible with not voluntarily paying more prior to the change in tax law.

Except with the Prisoner's Dilemma, a lot more people choose to act unilaterally generous.

[El Guapo 8]

Except for the truly mega wealthy, most people can pass the buck up. I believe it's something like 3% of our population makes over 250K a year and less than 1% that make over 1MM per year. So basically everyone can agree we should raise taxes on the people that make more than them.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Okay, let's just say I posted these ideas or got it froma random article and look at the specific issues.

Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

Do you think this is actually "capital gains"? and should the tax on there income be raised or kept at 15%?

Buffett's paid tax was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

Do you think the wealthiest in the country each year should pay a lower tax rate than the middle class?

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. Was the higher tax rate in the 8-'s or 90's good or bad?

Did it hurt the economy in other words being higher?

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.

Do you think the higher rate on Capital Gains would stop people from investing?

The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

Agree or disagree?

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

Agree or dissagree?

[vbnautilus 48]

Except with the Prisoner's Dilemma, a lot more people choose to act unilaterally generous.

That's mostly because they only need the cooperation of one other person.

[brvheart 1,752]

That's nothing new from Buffet. He's been saying that for years.If we taxed all rich people at 100%, we still wouldn't be able to close the budget deficit. Anything wrong there?

[LimbaughGod 0]

That's nothing new from Buffet. He's been saying that for years.If we taxed all rich people at 100%, we still wouldn't be able to close the budget deficit. Anything wrong there?

Yah, but the urban welfare queens could buy more chicken an 40's. That's the important thing, right? Don't try to reason with liberals.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

That's nothing new from Buffet. He's been saying that for years.If we taxed all rich people at 100%, we still wouldn't be able to close the budget deficit. Anything wrong there?

The only thing wrong is the implication that anything that can't completely close the budget deficit isn't worth doing.

[LimbaughGod 0]

If you really want to get your feet wet on the tax issues and learn why taxes are so bad (aside from just being socialist welfare and communists), here's America's foremost historian, as Bachmann, Perry, Huckabee, Cain, Gingrich...... any of our current GOP luminaries have confirmed him as, David Barton explaining

from a biblical perspective.

[CaneBrain 95]

explaining

from a biblical perspective.

so we know to do the opposite?

[CaneBrain 95]

Holy crap you just can't accept that one of the most successful business people in the World might actually differ from your rigid ideology in what he thinks is best for the country as a whole. The business guys who rant and rave against the government know what's right since they're job creators when they advocate policies that will benefit themselves and Warren Buffett is making a cynical play to increase the size of government by having he and his fellow uber-rich pay more taxes that will allow his business to get more government contracts.

Hey, Steve Wynn making the following self-serving and detailed argument: 'Obama is really bad for business and I could give you hundreds of reasons why but I am choosing not to at this time'is way more persuasive than Warren Buffet making a non-self serving argument with actual details and ideas.

[brvheart 1,752]

The only thing wrong is the implication that anything that can't completely close the budget deficit isn't worth doing.

So you think it's worth a shot to tax the top 2% at 100%, even though it won't produce enough revenue to fix our situation?

[brvheart 1,752]

so we know to do the opposite?

Cane, are you serious? This guy is obviously a democrat. You are free to safely ignore him.

[LimbaughGod 0]

Cane, are you serious? This guy is obviously a democrat. You are free to safely ignore him.

LOL are you retarded?No wonder you said that megachurch leaders shouldn't keep their wealth. I was mistaken in thinking you were a conservative with conservative values. your a RHINO and an idiot .

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So you think it's worth a shot to tax the top 2% at 100%, even though it won't produce enough revenue to fix our situation?

No I don't, though certainly a 100% tax rate on the top 2%, assuming a constant rate of income, would be enough to close the deficit.

[CaneBrain 95]

So you think it's worth a shot to tax the top 2% at 100%, even though it won't produce enough revenue to fix our situation?

No, we think that just because taxing the rich at 100% won't solve our entire fiscal situation that does not mean that increasing taxes on the rich modestly is a bad idea.

Cane, are you serious? This guy is obviously a democrat. You are free to safely ignore him.

I was not serious. However, if making obviously retarded conservative posts is a sign of being a secret democrat, when are we outing akoff?

[brvheart 1,752]

LOL are you retarded?No wonder you said that megachurch leaders shouldn't keep their wealth. I was mistaken in thinking you were a conservative with conservative values. your a RHINO and an idiot .

Cool story, bro.

[ShakeZuma 585]

Cool story, bro.

haha, aw snap.but seriously, the main problem I have with his article is his argument when he referenced the 80's and the higher taxes then and said that according to the theory "he sometimes hears" that he would have logically just quit investing. this is not the argument, and he knows it. the argument is that the higher the tax rate is on the investors, the less money that they have to invest. and as private businesses as a whole (the investments) are historically more efficient at creating wealth than the government, then the higher the tax rates go, the lower the wealth created. the thing that bothers me is that he knows this. he's warren freaking buffett. so why is he misrepresenting something that he knows to be true?

[mrdannyg 274]

It's not just Buffet. I keep hearing that some vast majority of Americans wants taxes to go up, yet basically 0% of them take up the government's offer to voluntarily raise their own taxes.Actions speak louder than words. If everyone who *said* they wanted taxes higher would throw in an extra 10 or 20% of their income each year, it would make a huge dent in the deficit.When I am given the chance to opt out of government retirement along with opting out of my SS tax, I will happily put my money where my mouth is and opt out of the system and be responsible for myself at retirement. I expect similar commitment to beliefs from those who always want more government.But it's not higher taxes anyone wants, including Buffet. It's higher taxes *on others*.

You're just being silly by continuing to argue against what you think Buffett thinks, instead of what he actually says in the article.

haha, aw snap.but seriously, the main problem I have with his article is his argument when he referenced the 80's and the higher taxes then and said that according to the theory "he sometimes hears" that he would have logically just quit investing. this is not the argument, and he knows it. the argument is that the higher the tax rate is on the investors, the less money that they have to invest. and as private businesses as a whole (the investments) are historically more efficient at creating wealth than the government, then the higher the tax rates go, the lower the wealth created. the thing that bothers me is that he knows this. he's warren freaking buffett. so why is he misrepresenting something that he knows to be true?

The argument isn't just that they'll have less money to invest, but that they'll be less interested in investing; invest a smaller proportion in addition to a smaller amount.The first part is just simple math. Take more of their income, they'll have less to invest. No one argues that. The proportion aspect is where things get touchy.I think we all know the solution - cut down income taxes. Way down, especially on the wealthy. But increase estate taxes. Like a crazy, ridiculous amount. 95% of amounts over $1MM. 99% of amounts over $100M. Just rape people. No loopholes, or any of the BS people use to transfer wealth either. Anything that isn't a legitimate operational corporation gets hit. Since we're all selfish pigs, it shouldn't affect investment. Investors are more efficient than the government, so growth in wealth is maximized. Republicans are happy! And government revenues increase in the long run. Liberals are happy!I think I should go to sleep.

[brvheart 1,752]

No I don't, though certainly a 100% tax rate on the top 2%, assuming a constant rate of income, would be enough to close the deficit.

Wrong.Can I provide a link? No. But I just heard the numbers recently, and the AGI's of the top 2% wouldn't cover the deficit by a long shot.

[hblask 1]

haha, aw snap.but seriously, the main problem I have with his article is his argument when he referenced the 80's and the higher taxes then and said that according to the theory "he sometimes hears" that he would have logically just quit investing. this is not the argument, and he knows it. the argument is that the higher the tax rate is on the investors, the less money that they have to invest. and as private businesses as a whole (the investments) are historically more efficient at creating wealth than the government, then the higher the tax rates go, the lower the wealth created. the thing that bothers me is that he knows this. he's warren freaking buffett. so why is he misrepresenting something that he knows to be true?

I am partly yanking chains going after Buffet; in the end his view on politics is as important to me as every other of the 300 million people in this country. OK, so another random internet person wants higher taxes.My arguments on "tax the rich" boils down to the following:1. You can't tax the rich, all you can do is tax the economy, and the taxes are distributed throughout the economy in the same ratio as the rest of the money. The point of collection matters little.2. Taxing the rich has near zero effect on tax revenue collected; it is barely noise in the grand scheme of federal tax revenue. The primary factor is economic growth. In certain economic conditions, raising the top tax rates can cause a decrease in tax revenue collected.3. Higher taxes increases the cost of doing business in this country relative to other countries, and most of that lost economic growth falls on the poor.4. The only reason anyone persists with calls to tax the rich is to distract people from the real discussion of how much trouble our country is in with runaway spending.5. Any excuse to grow govt at a time when it is taking a quarter of our income is a very very bad idea.

[mrdannyg 274]

I am partly yanking chains going after Buffet; in the end his view on politics is as important to me as every other of the 300 million people in this country. OK, so another random internet person wants higher taxes.My arguments on "tax the rich" boils down to the following:1. You can't tax the rich, all you can do is tax the economy, and the taxes are distributed throughout the economy in the same ratio as the rest of the money. The point of collection matters little.2. Taxing the rich has near zero effect on tax revenue collected; it is barely noise in the grand scheme of federal tax revenue. The primary factor is economic growth. In certain economic conditions, raising the top tax rates can cause a decrease in tax revenue collected.3. Higher taxes increases the cost of doing business in this country relative to other countries, and most of that lost economic growth falls on the poor.4. The only reason anyone persists with calls to tax the rich is to distract people from the real discussion of how much trouble our country is in with runaway spending.5. Any excuse to grow govt at a time when it is taking a quarter of our income is a very very bad idea.

2. Yes. Yes yes.3. That is a stretch, especially if we're talking about personal taxes. I won't say it is wrong, but it's close.4. Not really. When someone making more money has a lower average tax rate, that is indicative of a structural problem. So some people would be discussing that issue for reasons that aren't just a distraction. Now, if you want to change "anyone" to "any politicians" in that sentence, then I will agree.5. The government has more than the two options "grow" and "don't grow".

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Wrong.Can I provide a link? No. But I just heard the numbers recently, and the AGI's of the top 2% wouldn't cover the deficit by a long shot.

Too lazy to find exact numbers:Deficit according to wiki, the 2012 deficit will be 1.1 Trillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_S..._federal_budgetThe only numbers as a breakdown that I could (quickly) find were from the 2006 census: _________________________Number Mean Income Total ............................. 116,011 66,570 $250,000 and above......... 2,240 448,687 http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htmBased on those numbers, if you tax 100% of the income of families making $250,000, you are taxing 2240 / 116011 of families = 1.9%Their mean income * the number of households = the total income = 2240 * 448687 = 1.0 TrillionSo, if you consider a slight income inflation between 2006 and 2012, you make up for the deficit.Not that this number has anything to do with anything.

[brvheart 1,752]

Too lazy to find exact numbers:Deficit according to wiki, the 2012 deficit will be 1.1 Trillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_S..._federal_budgetThe only numbers as a breakdown that I could (quickly) find were from the 2006 census: _________________________Number Mean Income Total ............................. 116,011 66,570 $250,000 and above......... 2,240 448,687 http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htmBased on those numbers, if you tax 100% of the income of families making $250,000, you are taxing 2240 / 116011 of families = 1.9%Their mean income * the number of households = the total income = 2240 * 448687 = 1.0 TrillionSo, if you consider a slight income inflation between 2006 and 2012, you make up for the deficit.Not that this number has anything to do with anything.

So at 100% it still doesn't cover the negative spending year over year. What about the 15 trillion in debt that we have built up? When do we start fixing that... even at 100% tax rate? Our debt payments already make up 30% of our expenditures.