Which suggests that he is a whiner. Not a leader. The latter are influential. The former, not so much.
So to answer the OP’s question: No. It won’t have much of an effect. People follow leaders. They dismiss whiners.
There is precisely no point to Warren Buffet, on his own, paying more taxes than he legally owes. He would be a fool to do so, and an equal fool to not take advantage of all the breaks afforded to him. His contributions would make a negligible impact to the US deficit, even as one of the wealthiest Americans there is. It’s going to take a collective effort from all of the wealthiest Americans to have any kind of impact, which is why he’s suggesting an increase in the upper tax brackets and a decrease in the lower tax brackets.
He can, but why would he? He isn’t saying that wealthy people should voluntarily pay more taxes then they have to, but that they should legally have to pay more taxes. Even if he randomly decided to pay extra, I don’t see how it would effect his argument any.
Well, since at least 40% of all wage earners in the US don’t pay any federal income taxes at all, it sounds like he (and you) are advocating an even more steeply progressive income tax system than we have today.
Look, I don’t want to take this off into a tangent about tax policy and our progressive system. There are plenty of threads on that already.
The OP asked if his suggestion would gain any traction. My basic answer was “No, because he’s a hypocrite and is not leading by example.” I wasn’t arguing that his tax returns were illegal, or foolish, or bad, or good, or anything else. I was attempting to answer the OP’s question.
Hypocrite != leading by example. A hypocrite would be if he advocated that the rich pay higher taxes and then used his influence to pass legislation exempting residents of Omaha from paying the higher taxes.
Yes. I thought that was obvious.
You don’t get to decide what tax tables to use. You can’t just decide your capital gains should get taxed as ordinary income. If you overpay your taxes and get audited, the federal government writes you a check for what you are entitled to (it actually happened to me). You don’t get to “just pay more taxes.” Our government isn’t set up that way.
Buffet and Gates, Sr. (as well as young Bill), donate a considerable amount of their wealth to charitable causes. That’s how they are choosing to give in lieu of higher taxes.
No problem.
But you might want to go ask California and New York State how that is working out for them on the state tax rate part of the equation.
Here’s a link that describes how 144,000 taxpayers are footing the bill for 50% of California’s tax revenues. Better hope they don’t move across the border to Incline Village, Nev.
I read an article a short while back, which I’m searching for at the moment, that said that $1 billion in New York State taxes was collected from just 300 upper-income households in Manhattan. Better hope they don’t move to Florida.
Steeply progressive tax structures are extremely volatile in terms of the revenue they generate. They feel great in good times, but fall apart in flat-to-declining times. The latter of which we are experiencing right now.
I’d be interested in hearing if Mr Buffett has any ideas on cutting government spending.
Excellent. That actually sounds like an excellent suggestion.
So perhaps Mr Buffet and Mr Gates could say something like “Let’s all donate a lot more to charitable causes.” I’d be down with that noise. That we all can choose to give and help to the causes we support.
That sounds great.
So why again are they imploring the government to take more in taxes from the rich, when they don’t do it themselves? That part got lost in there, somewhere.
You’ve successfully hit on one of the few instances where taxes should be raised on middle income people, at least those with old housing stock whose property taxes can legally only be raised so high. Prop 13 is the lower- and middle- class equivalent of Voodoo economics. Step 1, lower taxes. Step 2, don’t decrease expeditures. Step 3??? Step 4, Profit!
Where are all those jobs those billionaires were going to generate with the money saved from their lower taxes? Unemployed and underemployed friends of mine would love to know. In the meantime they just feel trickled on.
They’re doing both. They’re encouraging billionaires to donate half their wealth to charities in their wills. Buffett is planning on going further than that, to 99 per cent.
Tell that to your buddy Bricker who says once the rules are made, no one should be expected to place themselves at a disadvantage with respect to others subject to the same laws, and there was no reason anyone should not be justified in taking just as much of an advantage as everyone else.
Is Bricker a whiner?
They are one step ahead of you.
This is correct, but he also has the legal and accounting staff to go way out of their way to reduce their income so they pay less than otherwise
As Miss Jane said to Jed Clampett, “It’s not illegal to AVOID taxes so long as you do not EVADE them”
So the question becomes why expect anyone to pay more if they don’t have to and since they won’t then let’s close up the ways to avoid taxes.
The real hypocrites are the rich lobbying for lower taxes so they can hire more people, and then not hiring them.
Confiscating Buffets entire wealth would not solve our problems. Buffet knows that. He is simply saying his class has been underpaying for a long time and ought to pay more. The financial problems of the nation are exacerbated by the ability of the rich to avoid paying their share. There is no way to fix our fiscal problems without raising taxes. Especially to the rich. During Eisenhower the rich paid 90 percent. Now it is under 15. Can you figure out where the missing money went? Buy a ticket to the Caymans or Switzerland to see where American money hides.
Prisoner’s dillemma.
This isn’t quite Economics 101. It’s Economics 210, Intermediate Micro. Rational decision making as part of a group isn’t necessarily the same as rational decision making as an individual.
In any event, Buffett’s statements are either true or they are false no matter what he personally pays in tax.
That sounds great, too.
It actually sounds like he prefers to keep as much income as possible for himself, via sound tax planning, and to make donations as he sees fit. He prefers to exercise his right of choice to direct his own property wherever he would like it to go.
But he wants others to have their money forcibly removed at the point of a gun by the federal government. Even if they don’t want that.
Hmmmmm. That’s interesting.
Can I do that too? Can I say “I promise to donate 99 percent of my wealth to charitable causes after I die.” After I set aside a reasonable sum for my children, of course. Which I’ll note that Mr Gates, Mr Gates Jr. and Buffet have also done.
And I’ll pay an effective 17.7% rate, just like Mr Buffett. I’ll also encourage rich billionaires like Mr Buffett to do the same.
How about that? That sounds like a pretty good deal, no? After all, in the posts above you sound very much in support of Mr Buffett’s position. So presumably, you will have no problem with my idea.
Correct?
Maybe. The article with the 17% number was in '08 when the stock market had lost a gajillion percent. I suspect he could’ve paid much lower taxes by simply writing off his capital gains losses, I doubt he needed a huge staff of tax lawyers to figure that out.
No he doesn’t. He thinks he, and others in the same position, should be required to pay more in income taxes. That’s his whole point.