Warren Buffet has weighed in on tax cuts. Choice quotes from Bloomberg:
Billionaire Warren Buffett said that rich people should pay more in taxes and that Bush-era tax cuts for top earners should be allowed to expire at the end of December.
“The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you,” Buffett, chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in the interview. “But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”
The Oracle of Omaha hath spoken. Do you think this statement of the obvious will have any effect on whether the Bush era cuts will be extended for the top earners?
That is the argument against extending tax cuts for the rich. it is simply wrong. It does not work and the rich are ass deep in cash now. But some on this board can not figure it out.
Warren Buffet has a brilliant track record as an investor. But there are a few other things to note:
As widely reported in the press, he has historically paid a lower effective tax rate on his income than his secretary.
There is nothing stopping Mr Buffett from writing a very, very large check to the US Treasury whenever he pleases. There is also nothing to stop him from filing his taxes differently, and paying more in an effective rate each year.
Bill Gates, father (William Gates Sr.) has also gone on record as saying the rich need to pay more in taxes. But yet, Mr. Gates is still quite wealthy and apparently has not voluntarily ponied up more money for the US Treasury.
Calling for others to pay taxes, it seems, is a lot easier than simply leading by example and doing it yourself.
Mr Buffett’s father was a businessman turned US Congressman. If you read some of Mr Buffett’s biographies and autobiographies, it’s clear that he had enormous respect for his father and what he accomplished in Washington.
My personal opinion is that this is a soft spot for Mr Buffett and in various writings, interviews and opinion pieces he is very, very loathe to criticize Congress or the government. Your interpretation may be different, of course.
Meh? The “why don’t they voluntarily pay more taxes” is a pretty weak dodge. His complaint isn’t specific to himself, he’s just using himself as an example. He thinks the wealthy in general should pay higher taxes on their income, not specifically only Warren Buffet.
I had to check to make sure this thread was started in 2010. Buffet has been saying this stuff for years. As a conservative, I agree with Buffet on this. Right now many of the super wealthy are paying something like 15% of their yearly income in tax, because of how the tax code is structured (I’ll apologize for being off the cuff on the percentage, I know it is around that level.)
Now, agreeing with the concept of “the rich should pay more than they are” isn’t the same thing as saying “the top marginal rate needs to go up.” To me it’s more about finding a way to actually get the rich to pay ~35% of their actual yearly income in taxes. Historically even with the top marginal rate being like 90%, the rich have kept ~80% or more of their pre-tax income through loop holes that historically we’ve never found a way to eliminate entirely.
I’ll also say that if something is good fiscal or social policy then it is good fiscal or social policy. Since Buffet isn’t an expert on either, his opinion isn’t particularly relevant. Believe it or not managing an entire country’s fiscal system is actually markedly different than what Buffet does–all Buffet has done to make himself rich is correctly predict the future value of various things better than most other people. In fact, that’s essentially what Buffet has said about himself–he’s been fabulously compensated in life because he has a knack for understanding the value of a business and knows when (generally) to hold em and when to fold em. That doesn’t mean I value his opinion more than any other man on the street when it comes to state fiscal policy.
I also think, just to save people on typing, it’s probably best if you stop this type of thread.
If someone has a certain political position, I don’t know of any examples in which that person has changed their position just because a poster here on the SDMB has found a famous person that is respected by the individual who holds a different opinion. Or rather, if I believe in X, just because you can show me an example of someone I like who believe something other than X, that’s not going to automatically change my feelings on the matter.
I’d write a long discourse about the presumption of property, marginal rates, and the utility of large numbers, but I’m afraid it would simply be handily dismissed by such luminary heavyweights such as yourself.
No, I’d like to hear it. Please expound. I think I can probably handle the math. Give it a whirl. Please.
My post was merely in response to the OP. The OP asked (in a roundabout way) whether this would gain any traction or not.
My reply was to suggest “Why should it? It’s proponent doesn’t even follow his own advice.” If it was that good of an idea, than why isn’t he doing it himself?
He certainly isn’t acting as an influential advocate of his own cause if he is taking deliberate steps against paying more taxes, each and every year. It destroys the credibility of the argument. Sort of like Al Gore and John Edwards living in sprawling mansions on huge estates, whilst they implore us to reduce our footprint on Mother Earth.
Because the gov’t doesn’t fund itself by asking people to just throw in whatever they think is fair. Buffet pays what he’s legally required to do, but he feels that legal requirement should be higher. Even if he did write a big extra check to the gov’t (which he sort of has, in that he provides billions for the Gates foundation, which funds programs that are also funded by the federal and local gov’ts, such as NPR, libraries, etc) it would be irrelevant to his argument. He can write checks to help fund things, but he can’t voluntarily raise what he’s legally required to pay.
If I myself chose what my tax rate would be, I would choose zero. If I chose my local tax rate I’d also choose zero. Since it has yet to be shown that this country will not implode in less than two years if we select our own taxes, AND YET, this argument consistently shows up, it is brain dead. The alternative, of course, being that the people who continually bring it up actually want the government to cease to function, which some of them do.
Okay, I can’t tell if you’re just playing like you can’t actually understand the concept, but how’s this? If he were to voluntarily pay more taxes, it wouldn’t significantly increase government revenue. You can understand that, right?
I don’t know when, “Who, little ole’ me?” became the conservative version of reasoned debate but it’s embarrassing.
As for the Al Gore thing, all that shows is you haven’t bothered to actually understand what he’s saying. You’re arguing against an imagined message. Good for you.
This is not about one man. Everyone who thinks the tax rates should be increased are, as stated, free to donate all they wish to the Treasury. But, no, the very people who want taxes raised do not want to pay their fair share and do everything in their power to avoid taxes while demanding that everyone else should pay more.
Cite? I don’t think individuals actually can donate money to the US Treasury. I suspect the headache of figuring out how to process random donations would be more trouble then its worth for them. Certainly the IRS doesn’t like it if you overpay.
Buffet is not saying “everyone else” should pay more. He says the middle class should pay less. He’s saying that the law should be changed so that he and other high income earners should pay more.
So we’ve established that Yorick73 is unable to understand the issue.
Hey, watch I can invent a conservative argument. “We should disband the military. Just have anyone who wants to fight show up in Afghanistan.”
There is no honor or cleverness in suggesting ignorant drivel as policy. And if you can’t understand why voluntary taxation isn’t a real solution you simply have no place at a table where serious things are being debated.
So we seem to have established that, as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody is suggesting a voluntary tax system. I don’t want my rates to go up and, if you feel you should pay more, then go right ahead.
Oh, and your military analogy is also incorrect. A better analogy would be demanding everyone to join the military while not wanting to join yourself.
Buffett is railing against the absurdity that rich people, without even having to avoid taxes, only have to pay 17.7%. If he wrote a very large check to the treasury, it still wouldn’t eliminate the absurdity that the other 10,000 rich people in America pay such low taxes, and it wouldn’t induce them to follow him.
He can stop itemizing next year, which he is most certainly doing if he is only paying a 17.7% effective rate.
He can probably take steps to declare a bunch of dividend, capital-gains and investment income as ordinary wage income.
Those two things right off the bat would bump up his effective rate to the mid-30s, at least. With very little effort. It would actually make filing his taxes easier, to boot.
Let’s see if he and Mr. Gates, Sr. do that. Shall we?