Warren Buffet: stop coddling the richest Americans

[Ice]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77E1QI20110815

Buffett says "stop coddling" the richest Americans

* Theme for Obama as he embarks on campaign (Adds Romney quote, paras 13-15)

Aug 15 (Reuters) - Small-town Americans probably don't make as much money as Warren Buffett, but they pay more of their income in taxes, President Barack Obama said on Monday, citing the billionaire investor to argue that the government needs more revenues to balance the budget.

Obama referred to an opinion column written by the Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N) chairman as he made the case to about 500 people at a town hall meeting in rural Minnesota that any attempt to close the U.S. deficit gap should include tax increases for the rich as well as spending cuts.

Cannon Falls was the first stop on Obama's three-state bus tour through middle America intended to connect with voters as he embarks on his 2012 re-election campaign.

He is expected to focus on jobs and the economy after a bitter debate in Washington over debt and deficits that triggered a downgrade in the U.S. credit rating.

"I put a deal before the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, that would have solved this problem.

"And he walked away because his belief was we can't ask anything of millionaires and billionaires and big corporations in order to close our deficit," Obama said, referring to the divisive fight with congressional Republicans over how best to deal with the country's massive budget deficit.

In a column headlined "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich," Buffett wrote in The New York Times on Monday that he paid $6,938,744 in income tax last year, only 17.4 percent of his taxable income.

"That's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office," Buffett wrote. "Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent."

Buffett urged members of a new congressional "supercommittee" looking at ways to balance the budget to raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, and even more for those making more than $10 million.

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress," Buffett wrote. "It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

Congressional Republicans -- and Republican candidates vying for the party's nomination to run against Obama next year -- oppose any increase in taxes. Obama wants taxes to be increased for the wealthiest Americans.

"You don't get those tax breaks. You're paying more than that. Now I may be wrong, but I think you're a little less wealthy than Warren Buffett. Now that's just a guess," Obama said, to laughter from his Minnesota audience.

Republican presidential nomination front-runner Mitt Romney, a multimillionaire ex-businessman, said Buffett had failed to take into account corporate taxes paid by his conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway.

"The problem with rich people is that many of them are smart," Romney said in the key primary state of New Hampshire.

"High taxes on entrepreneurs and investors dissuade them from putting Americans to work," he said.

Going to agree with the Buffett on this one over Romney.

*As my Knight Templar friend astutely pointed out... title is spelled wrong... please correct*

[Centurion1]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77E1QI20110815



Going to agree with the Buffet on this one over Romney.

It must hurt to spell part of your title wrong...

Anyway this article is full of huge holes. Obama wants to raise taxes for a certain percentage of Americans when they say, "the super rich"

These numbers always give me some insight into what these super rich are,

Top 1%: $380,354

Top 5%: $159,619

Top 10%: $113,799

Top 25%: $67,280

Top 50%: >$33,048

Average income of these groups. Obama's tax increases seem to target thses super rich factions starting with either the mighty 10 or 5%. You can call someone who makes 150k a year rich but I most certainly do not. I call them hovering between upper middle class and middle class depending on where they reside.

Finally I would like to address this,

In a column headlined "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich," Buffett wrote in The New York Times on Monday that he paid $6,938,744 in income tax last year, only 17.4 percent of his taxable income.

"That's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office," Buffett wrote. "Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent."

Half the country (about 47-51% of the nation pay no federal income tax whatsoever) so these people that buffet is speaking to are already of good stature in the US.

Now lets address the glaring inaccuracies which Buffet is bringing up. His characterization of payroll taxes is absurd. Those taxes are capped for the very reason of avoiding a huge retirement payout to the wealthy later on. So obviously he does not have as high a burden. Every capped tax in the Us meant to protect the payout service later on is obviously going to have a higher burden on the less wealthy. And Romney's comment regarding corporate taxes, let alone where Buffet made the majority of his money last fiscal year is highly relevant and conveniently avoided by buffet in his op-ed.


Buffets constant griping about taxes are all self serving. If he really wants to give more money to the federal government he should just donate it, which is totally legal and doesn't garner him any benefits.

So if you want to tax the mega rich at higher rates okay maybe i could tolerate that but make sure its the actual mega rich....... someone making 380k a year doesn't even sound mega rich to me. This fictional hyper rich 5% they want to tax the hell out of is just the upper middle class.

[gaelic cowboy]

So if you want to tax the mega rich at higher rates okay maybe i could tolerate that but make sure its the actual mega rich....... someone making 380k a year doesn't even sound mega rich to me. This fictional hyper rich 5% they want to tax the hell out of is just the upper middle class.

308k a year is more than comfortable, personally I wont weep for them if there squeezed a bit more.

[Centurion1]

308k a year is more than comfortable, personally I wont weep for them if there squeezed a bit more.

It certainly is not mega rich.

[gaelic cowboy]

It certainly is not mega rich.

No it's not mega rich but then the bar is so much higher these days, 308k per year is greater than the average house price in the majority of the USA.

308k is I would safely say rich they can afford one or two percent more per year.

[Centurion1]

No it's not mega rich but then the bar is so much higher these days, 308k per year is greater than the average house price in the majority of the USA.

308k is I would safely say rich they can afford one or two percent more per year.

Only 80k.

Someone living in say SD California is going to pay around 300k for a decent townhouse in an area like La Mesa which isn't that great a location. By the same note I could spend 300k in Georgia and buy a sprawling abode.

Also you seem blissfully unaware of the actual point, that is the top 1% of earners in the united states. And it is an average......... which means that number includes people who make millions upon millions of dollars per year...... does say 200k sound like a rich person to you as well?

And smart people would be able to make the distinction between corporate profit and personal income. Smart people, especially entrepreneurs, can generally get their head around how percentages work, too. They know that 50% of $200K is more than 100% of $40K. Smart people could also point out that the vast majority of entrepreneurs are owners of small/medium business for whom taxes don't make the tiniest bit of difference when it comes to the number of people they have on the payroll: their companies are too small to have (afford) positions which are pure overhead, instead what makes a difference is the amount of spending by their customers (again, typically small & medium business and/or consumers). And finally, smart people could point out that for entrepreneurs what matters most is the feeling of freedom from being your own boss, not the net pay. Startups would not ever be founded, if those entrepreneurs looked at it from the paycheck angle.

Start ups are formed with the desire to get ahead and become wealthy..... not to be your own boss. That is a secondary factor at best for most entrepeneurs and the desire to make oodles of cash and expand is the goal of the majority of people.

By what your implying smart people believe if a small business owner is presented with a proposal that would require a 150k expansion for profits far exceeding that they would first make sure that they would not lose their precious freedom of choice. I counter that the vast majority of human beings on the planet want the additional cash and knowledge that expansion of their business is always capable.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Odd, for a politician you would've thought Romney could choose his words more carefully so as not to look a complete tool:

"The problem with rich people is that many of them are smart," Romney said in the key primary state of New Hampshire.

"High taxes on entrepreneurs and investors dissuade them from putting Americans to work," he said.

And smart people would be able to make the distinction between corporate profit and personal income. Smart people, especially entrepreneurs, can generally get their head around how percentages work, too. They know that 50% of $200K is more than 100% of $40K. Smart people could also point out that the vast majority of entrepreneurs are owners of small/medium business for whom taxes don't make the tiniest bit of difference when it comes to the number of people they have on the payroll: their companies are too small to have (afford) positions which are pure overhead, instead what makes a difference is the amount of spending by their customers (again, typically small & medium business and/or consumers). And finally, smart people could point out that for entrepreneurs what matters most is the feeling of freedom from being your own boss, not the net pay. Startups would not ever be founded, if those entrepreneurs looked at it from the paycheck angle.

[Papewaio]

Now lets address the glaring inaccuracies which Buffet is bringing up. His characterization of payroll taxes is absurd. Those taxes are capped for the very reason of avoiding a huge retirement payout to the wealthy later on. So obviously he does not have as high a burden. Every capped tax in the Us meant to protect the payout service later on is obviously going to have a higher burden on the less wealthy. And Romney's comment regarding corporate taxes, let alone where Buffet made the majority of his money last fiscal year is highly relevant and conveniently avoided by buffet in his op-ed.


Buffets constant griping about taxes are all self serving. If he really wants to give more money to the federal government he should just donate it, which is totally legal and doesn't garner him any benefits.

Why should there be a retirement payout based on taxes?

Surely retirement should be up to the individual with a pension for those who haven't saved enough (which should be above the poverty line). In Australia we are a social democracy, but we do not pay back anyone more then the pension... those who are wealthy do not get an extra handout... instead for the last twenty years we have had superannuation... very similar to a tax, but ultimately it functions more like a private pension fund... so the government doesn't have to fund retirement to the same degree.

Warren Buffet has already pledged most of his wealth to charities, the statements he has made are consistent with this and with one of the greater American tradition of philanthropy. How is it self-serving to serve ones nation?

I find it distasteful that after all the corporate bailouts that the rich and the corporations are not ready to help dig the US out of it's collective hole... one that was dug by those avoiding their duties. As modern nations we admire our young who join the military and serve their nations in their time of need. But for some reason we think it is fine for our old to be Scrooges and not serve their nation with their wealth. There is a logical inconsistency in this, it seems to me that we are expecting the poor to die for the wealth of the rich, but the rich aren't expected to do anything for the poor.

[Ice]

It must hurt to spell part of your title wrong...

Protip, when you are going to call someone out, it's probably a good idea not to then proceed to spell the name in question incorrectly. As for the rest of the response, I'll answer tomorrow as I'm in the same sleep deprived state that caused me to misspell the title to begin with.

Buffett... not Bufet or Buffet... =/

[Centurion1]

Protip, when you are going to call someone out, it's probably a good idea not to then proceed to spell the name in question incorrectly. As for the rest of the response, I'll answer tomorrow as I'm in the same sleep deprived state that caused me to misspell the title to begin with.

Buffett... not Bufet or Buffet... =/

wasn't an insult.

protip: sometimes people point out a mistake for you in case you didn't notice figuring you may have wanted it brought to your attention.

being thin skinned isn't a good thing especially on the internet.

[Xiahou]

Anyone want to bet that he'd use this to screw over his competitors and get richer?

"That's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office," Buffett wrote. "Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent."

I also call shenanigans on this. The only logical conclusion you can draw from this is that all 20 people in his office are very rich and Buffett is just better at sheltering his taxes. My income falls above the median household income in my state and my effective tax rate (according to TurboTax) is typically under 10%.

His "shared sacrifice" claptrap is complete nonsense as well. Almost half of Americans pay nothing in federal taxes- shared sacrifice would start with them paying anything. He's not talking about shared sacrifice, he's talking about soaking a certain class. Lastly, if Buffett thinks he should pay more in taxes, the IRS takes donations- as I'm sure he's aware.

[Papewaio]

Anyone want to bet that he'd use this to screw over his competitors and get richer?
I also call shenanigans on this. The only logical conclusion you can draw from this is that all 20 people in his office are very rich and Buffett is just better at sheltering his taxes. My income falls above the median household income in my state and my effective tax rate (according to TurboTax) is typically under 10%.

To get under 10% income tax in Aus you'd have to be earning well less then 20k and you'd not be factoring in Medicare

[Ironside]

being thin skinned isn't a good thing especially on the internet.

......... You should know I suppose.


Anyway, what kind of job do you have if you're making 200k or 309k respectivly? Middle boss or something?

Oh and cooperate taxes doesn't apply, since it's taken from a different pot. The CEO salary is payed before cooperate taxes is payed and it's very rare for a rich CEO to have their own private company, making company profits different from private profits.

You might get double taxed by having own stocks and getting the divends (that's certainly a greed is good encuragement), the company profit part that's defined as being the non-reinvested part. But those capital gains taxes are much lower (10%-20%, better number if you're richer) than regular taxes.

I also call shenanigans on this. The only logical conclusion you can draw from this is that all 20 people in his office are very rich and Buffett is just better at sheltering his taxes. My income falls above the median household income in my state and my effective tax rate (according to TurboTax) is typically under 10%.

While the people in the office are probably very rich, it's quite possibly enough that he gets most of his income as capital gains to get the difference.

[Centurion1]

......... You should know I suppose.


Anyway, what kind of job do you have if you're making 200k or 309k respectivly? Middle boss or something?

Oh and cooperate taxes doesn't apply, since it's taken from a different pot. The CEO salary is payed before cooperate taxes is payed and it's very rare for a rich CEO to have their own private company, making company profits different from private profits.

You might get double taxed by having own stocks and getting the divends (that's certainly a greed is good encuragement), the company profit part that's defined as being the non-reinvested part. But those capital gains taxes are much lower (10%-20%, better number if you're richer) than regular taxes.




While the people in the office are probably very rich, it's quite possibly enough that he gets most of his income as capital gains to get the difference.

your right i am too thin skinned sometimes.

its 4 in the morning ill address your other points later.