Exactly. Buffet anticipates the rational counter to his rebuttal – that his situation was atypical, and the rich really do pay a higher marginal tax rate. The fact that none of his detractors try to make the obvious case is evidence that it is false and Buffet’s tax rate is typical.
The “well why doesn’t Buffet pay more taxes if he wants to” trope concedes Buffet’s point. It’s not even an ad hominem argument – it’s just “you’re right, here’s something else to talk about”.
He has a fiduciary responsibility to his investors to not pay more taxes than he is required to. That’s entirely different from his personal income tax, which affects no one else besides himself.
So it looks like Warren Buffett paid over 700 times the amount of federal income tax last year than I did. Fucking freeloader. He should pay at least 900 times more than me.
In fact, everything should be like that. When I went to Monticello last year, the admission was $11.95. I think that Buffett should have to pay $1011.95 for admission, just to be fair and equal.
For the same reason that Republican congressmen who want to cut federal spending don’t voluntarily refuse federal money for their states. If they think the government spends too much, they should stop taking federal highway funds, federal education funds, and any other form of federal spending.
Almost, but not really. If Congresscritter X refused federal funds, that would not reduce the amount of spending. The spending would just be shifted elsewhere. And since Congresscritter X can’t control the amount of taxes the federal government takes, he might as well get as much of his share back as he can.
So why cut any spending project? It will just be spent elsewhere.
Might as well. Reducing the deficit is a fool’s errand.
Oddly enough, if you donate $1 or $1million, you still reduce your taxes by much less than the amount you donated. You are still out of pocket by more than if you just paid taxes. He’s giving away money over and above his taxes, out of his own pocket, just to help others. Not a lot different than giving it to the US government, but he gets to direct it to more productive charitable uses.
I assume the USA is like Canada, and giving to charity means you effectively subtract that money from taxable income - so in Buffet’s case, he would donate $1 and reduce his taxes by 19 cents… Hardly the primary motive for a donation.
Slight nitpick. As someone who occaisionly makes “7 figures,” and pays about a third of my income in taxes, there is no way I could “triple” what I pay. I could, and should, pay more. Like Mr. Buffet, however, I won’t do it unless everyone else in my bracket has to also.
[quote=“Fear_Itself, post:46, topic:596816”]
So why cut any spending project? It will just be spent elsewhere./quote]
Not necessarily. If Congress cuts a program, it has the option of cutting the overall budget by the same amount.
I hope not. Eventually, it has to be addressed.
Do you have a cite for the bolded part? He certainly did not mention that in the New York Times Opinion column that has generated so much discussion. Maybe he said it elsewhere, but I have not seen it.
That is a childish response and a complete misunderstanding of what it is about. Buffet can not fix the deficit by himself. He was merely pointing out that the tax system has been rigged in favor of the wealthy. They pay far less a proportion of their income than the rest of us. It is class warfare and his class in winning.
He is also smart enough to know changing the tax rates so the wealthy and corporations pay more will help fix the deficits. When Ike was president, the wealthy paid over 80 percent. They were still rich. But the government was a lot more solvent . We built the interstate road system at that time. Now we can’t maintain our infrastructure. Our bridges are falling down and our roads are screwed up. But back then we had nearly full employment and we built things.
I can type rolleyes too: :rolleyes:
A baseball team is in full compliance with Major League Baseball Rule 6.10 if it has the pitcher bat for himself, so your pompous “rule of law” doesn’t apply to my first example.
Try answering that question. It really might help you understand your fallacy. If that’s something that would have value for you.
Oh, and by the way, it’s really ironic to hear the Greed is Good school lambaste Mr. Buffett for being so greedy as to not make donations to the U.S. Treasury, when in fact Mr. Buffett is near the top of the list for most generous philanthropist ever.
Oh for Og’s sake, Septimus, spit it out. If you have some point to make, some fallacy to point out, then *do so *instead of coming up with obscure analogies for showing off your knowledge of baseball rules. For all I know I may agree with whatever the hell you are trying to say, when you finally get around to saying it, but at this point all you are being is irritating.
Am I the only person horrified that a secretary is paying a 29% rate??
hh
And none of it is tax deductible!
What??
Nobody in the Greed is good school are saying that he is so greedy…they are calling him a jerk for saying that he, himself, should be paying more, but, he’s not doing it, and advocating government coercion to make it mandatory, because a law is necessary to make him pay more…because a billionaire is powerless to send money to the government…
Therein lies the irony…
hh
First of all, I gave the baseball rule analogy because I honestly thought it would clarify. I certainly was not trying to “show off baseball knowledge” – I thought I knew less about baseball than any other American, but I guess I’m behind you, Princhester for that distinction. 
Second, I’m honestly confounded that my point is hard to understand. Let me bold-face it:
What one advocates as public policy doesn’t necessarily impact one’s personal decisions.
I might support U.S. war against Iran but “Then why don’t you go fight them alone?” would be a silly question: I’d want to be backed up by the whole U.S. army, not fight solitaire.
I might support reducing freeway speed limit from 65 to 55 MPH, but still travel at the more convenient 65 until the law is changed.
I might oppose food stamps as a matter of public policy but, as long as the program exists, accept them to help my dependents. Is that hypocritical?
I might support subsidies for environment-friendly appliances, but, while such subsidies don’t exist, still buy unfriendly appliances in the selfish interest of my dependents.
What one advocates as public policy doesn’t necessarily impact one’s personal decisions.
I realize that what I advocate here seems to violate “The Golden Rule.” In fact, very few of us adhere faithfully to that rule; instead family fathers like myself feel an obligation to further the selfish interests of our children.
What one advocates as public policy doesn’t necessarily impact one’s personal decisions.
I would offer the same defense for Mr. Buffett if he greedily kept his huge income. That he instead finds it preferable to earmark specific charities rather than the U.S. Treasury makes the objections peculiarly fatuous.
Mr. Buffett advocates a public policy independent of his personal situation. Is this really hard to understand?
To throw another analogy at the OP (and hopefully finish it off):
It’s like if I believed banks should raise their interest rates.
It would be absurd to suggest that I should therefore pay back anything I borrow at a higher rate than the bank is requesting from me (or else be a hypocrite, or it’s “ironic”, or whatever).
I’ve heard the “why doesn’t he voluntarily pay more tax” argument used in several different media now and apparently it’s the best retort anyone can think of for Buffet’s tax suggestion :rolleyes:
I’m not American.
No, your point is not at all hard to understand, and as I thought I agree with it. Now that you make it.
Wrong.
Mr. Buffett’s actual comment (gasp!! is it fair to directly quote the man we’re trying to quote rather than using the synopsis from FoxNews or – worse – the “American Enterprise Institute” ?) was
I’ve edited Mr, Buffett’s comment – those who get their information from FoxNews and the American Enterprise Institute tend to have low attention spans – but I hope I’ve left enough intact to clarify that Mr. Buffett included all payroll taxes in his “taxes paid to the federal government.”
One can debate whether including such taxes is appropriate. (I think it is; after all these are real moneys afforded by a person’s employer and hence impacting the employment picture.)
But what we mustn’t do (at least if we pretend to be honest) is to ignore Mr. Buffett’s actual words; pretend he said something different; and invent lies.
Dr. Love, I hope learning that Mark J. Perry is a liar will help you in future. Out of curiosity, do you get your “information” from his blogs or is that just what you found Googling for what you wanted to find?