Buffett is simply playing by the same rules of the game as everyone else. He wants the rules changed, but until that time, as RickJay notes, it’s a Prisoner’s Dilemma situation. With regards to your proposed tax rate, I’m presuming you’re not a billionaire or taking home millions of dollars per year. That’s the pertinent fact.
What does Lindsay Lohan think about what the US should do in response to the new nuclear facilities just discovered in North Korea? Her opinion on that issue is the same as Buffet’s on this one.
That’s not how taxes work.
I don’t know that the point you are trying to make is totally retarded but its not really very relevant.
Once again, this is not how taxes work.
I’ve already outlined a few simple ways he can begin paying more in taxes, immediately. I suggest he do those things. Then he will have, at least, made one positive step in the right direction.
Please educate me on how taxes work. I’m sorry I’m so stupid. You’ll have to bear with me.
Even for you that’s a worthless post.
The only argument the right has on this is, “Oh yeah, why doesn’t he give his money away!” A utterly stupid and pathetic argument that makes its wielder look a little silly.
Lindsay Lohan hasn’t been given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. She has far less influence on public policy than Buffet. Like Buffet or hate him, when he speaks on economics, he gets listened to.
Of course, Warren could never start a fashion trend for leggings with kneepads.
You are being silly. It is not debating like an adult. It does not add to the discussion.
Well, for one, you can’t write a check to the U.S. Treasury for more than you owe. They send the difference back to you.
I feel that Buffet’s knowledge and experience regarding economics is in fact much more relevant and meaningful then Lindsay Lohan’s regarding nuclear non-proliferation. YMMV.
linky no workee. Personal income tax receipts in Calirfornia are in the neighborhood of $50B. Population is 37M or 0.000039% of the population pay 50% of the personal income tax. I could be wrong but this is not passing the smell test? You have another link?
He can abstain from itemizing.
He can turn over his investment portofolio more frequently and pay short-term, instead of long-term, capital gains.
He can buy government bonds and burn them. I think. I’m not sure what would happent to the coupon payments or principal repayment. He could probably buy government bonds, and then ask a courier to drop them in Tim Geithner’s mailbox without a return address. Or he could buy government bonds, and then burn the coupon payment checks.
He can burn his Social Security checks. Although I think he already donates these checks to charity. Another example of how he likes control over his own resources, but thinks others should have it extracted from them by the government.
Am I’m sure, that if he really really wanted to, he could make a few phone calls and figure out how to contribute to the US Treasury. Something tells me that it is far from an impossibility for a man of his prestige and influence to figure this out.
You can donate money to reduce the national debt. Although this seems to take in a whopping 2 million a year, which would seem to hardly pay for the costs involved with keeping this option open, let alone even begin to pay for Congress and the military.
If everyone prevailed using arguments akin to those in this thread, then I wouldn’t think actual donations to the treasury would rise much above this. And why would they, I don’t feel much like paying for the military and congress and other people’s social security, although feel free to give me mine, thankyouverymuch.
Why would doing any of these things make his argument for raising taxes more compelling?
Warren would actually have a much bigger positive effect if he lobbies for the repeal of Bush’s top end tax cut. Think multiplier effect. Warren could donate $40B to the federal pie, but if he helps get rid of the tax break it’s a win-win. Warren then pays maybe double his current tax, and drives what $500B over 10 years in additional revenue (someone please chime in what the Congressional Budget Office projection is for eliminating the top tax break is).
Here’s a link from the Economist. A fairly reliable source.
Half of $50Bn is $25Bn, which means the average tax liability is $173m for each of those 144,000. That sounds like a s***load, but my guess is that the distribution within that group itself is also skewed.
There are probably a few multi-billionaires at the top who paid in the $Bn’s, most likely from capital gains or investment income. And it looks like a Pareto chart after that, I suspect.
See, IdahoMuleMan, the point you’re missing here is that we live in a society. You’d think that’d be obvious, given that we’re talking about government policy and governments are one manifestation of society, but apparently it’s not. Because once you acknowledge the existence of a society, then Buffet’s argument suddenly makes sense.
And while you’re at it, you’re right that there are steps Buffet could take to increase the amount of tax he pays. One step that he could take is to lobby the government for an increase in the tax rate. And lo and behold, he’s doing that!
Because it would suggest more strongly that he actually believes it himself, rather than just pontificating on what others should do. If he really wanted it to happen he can certainly afford to lead by example.
Again, I’ll reference the esteemed Albert Gore and John Edwards in this matter on the environment, and Mitch McConnell (R) recently in the Senate on the question of earmarks. He was very much against government spending, as long as it didn’t affect his earmarks.
It’s in the article, I’m skeptical the original numbers/claim are reputable and are not bad math just repeated ad nauseum. That said, these could be correct and I am wrong. I’d still like to see this from the state budget office instead.
Buffet could report all of his capital gain each year as ordinary income and pay tax at the ordinary income rate. He could also do his taxes as if he had zero basis in every asset he sells.
“The right” needs no argument against this–it’s just one guy’s opinion on tax policy. It doesn’t need a response because there’s no argument to respond to–just one guy’s opinion.
I like how you guys lump what Buffet does for a living and tax policy into “economics.” But it doesn’t matter–Buffet is just expressing one man’s opinion.