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.

[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.

[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.

[Montmorency]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Gee, the government sure did go hard on our poor, poor, forefathers.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

The failure rate of start ups, the paperwork etc. etc. all dispel this notion. People who merely want to “get ahead in life” make a career in the employ of someone else without the financial liability should things go wrong. I agree that being your own boss is not necessarily the driving force behind start ups or entrepreneurs in general, but it is a recurring theme in what these people value much more than what they might hypothetically end up earning if this startup turns out to be among the tiny minority which does not fail within the first year.

... But more pertinently: in this tax debate the issue is not whether or not 5% hike in income tax would reduce the number of jobs. That's simply not an issue, at all: large companies don't hire nearly as much staff as what they lay off, it is the small and medium businesses where the jobs are created. And for those businesses it is the money spent by customers that counts, rather than an modest income tax hike which assuming a uniform distribution* of customer incomes affects spending of less than 10% of their customers anyway.

* And this distribution of affected spending will not be uniform, actually: most small and medium business sells relatively mundane articles which are in demand. It's the small & medium business which specialise in luxuries such as jewelry that would be affected more than the petrol station for instance.

[HoreTore]

Warren Buffet is a COMMUNIST!!!!

And he obviously knows nothing about how to create values and jobs! All he knows is how to steal money from hard-working americans!

[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.

[gaelic cowboy]

Only 80k.

Eh wha??

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.

Even if the average is greater they can well afford that house in SD on 308k.

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?

200k does sound quite comfortable afterall it's prob about 4-5 times the average yearly wage in the USA.

average wage USA but it only goes to 2009 still it hardly changed that much lately

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.

There are a lots of reasons people start companies and profit while a big one tis not the only reason people start there own company.

[Centurion1]

Eh wha??



Even if the average is greater they can well afford that house in SD on 308k.



200k does sound quite comfortable afterall it's prob about 4-5 times the average yearly wage in the USA.

average wage USA but it only goes to 2009 still it hardly changed that much lately



There are a lots of reasons people start companies and profit while a big one tis not the only reason people start there own company.

Someone with a wage of 308k is not living in a townhouse in SD la mesa.

its only 80k higher.

200k before taxes. and it sounds upper middle class to me nothing more nothing less.

[gaelic cowboy]

Someone with a wage of 308k is not living in a townhouse in SD la mesa.

Come on now Centurion1 308k in a year is more than comfortable, you used the example of an SD house being worth 300k if I earn 308k a year I can afford that house easy. Most people have to buy a house that is 2-3 times there yearly wage however in your example the wage is 8000 more than the house itself even with the credit crunch the bank would practically murder people to give you a mortgage on that wage. Even if we take it that this is before tax there bringing home around 205-210 a year and they can still afford that house in SD.

Say they put aside 28-30% a month for the house thats 60-70k a year roughly (I didnt work it out it could be more or less) which means they spend after tax and the mortgage somewhere between 120-130k a year to live.

So there not Warren Buffett big deal there not worrying about there meals either.

its only 80k higher.

so what

200k before taxes. and it sounds upper middle class to me nothing more nothing less.

Upper middle class denote better than most though, the average middle class family is probably closer to 100-150 (before tax)

[Centurion1]

Come on now Centurion 308k in a year is more than comfortable, you used the example of an SD house being worth 300k if I earn 308k a year I can afford that house easy. Most people have to buy a house that is 2-3 times there yearly wage however in your example the wage is 8000 more than the house itself even with the credit crunch the bank would practically murder people to give you a mortgage on that wage. Even if we take it that this is before tax there bringing home around 205-210 a year and they can still afford that house in SD.

Say they put aside 28-30% a month for the house thats 60-70k a year roughly (I didnt work it out it could be more or less) which means they spend after tax and the mortgage somewhere between 120-130k a year to live.

So there not Warren Buffet big deal there not worrying about there meals either.




so what



Upper middle class denote better than most though, the average middle class family is probably closer to 100-150 (before tax)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just find it annoying when people hear about the evil top 1-10%. When in reality we both no someone making say 200k a year is by no means wealthy. Living pretty comfortably (depending on the location if I was in nyc it would be more like middle class) and their kids may go to private school sure but would I say that person is some evil rich person? Hell no.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just find it annoying when people hear about the evil top 1-10%. When in reality we both no someone making say 200k a year is by no means wealthy. Living pretty comfortably (depending on the location if I was in nyc it would be more like middle class) and their kids may go to private school sure but would I say that person is some evil rich person? Hell no.

True there not evil which is why it should be only a percent or two at that level.

[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.

[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.

[Major Robert Dump]

A person making 300k a year is rich.

A household making 300k a year is pretty well off.

If 300k is middle class because you live in a town where the cost of living is high then cry me a river, and move to Indiana. Then keep an apartment in the big city and fly "home" on the weekends, as all those expenses are tax deductable.

Oh wait, that's what the smart ones already do.

[Ronin]

courageous statement by Buffett,

unfortunately as we all have been informed, there are no rich people in America....only "job creators"......so this ends up being an empty statement.

[HoreTore]

I laugh when I hear people lamenting the woes of those making more than 100k USD. I laugh hard.

Seriously, if you make 100k and still have financial troubles, might I suggest that you retake a 3rd grade math class?

[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

[Vladimir]

A person making 300k a year is rich.

A household making 300k a year is pretty well off.

If 300k is middle class because you live in a town where the cost of living is high then cry me a river, and move to Indiana. Then keep an apartment in the big city and fly "home" on the weekends, as all those expenses are tax deductable.

Oh wait, that's what the smart ones already do.

First of all, there are no smart people in Indiana. Secondly, how many 300k jobs exist in middle America? I live in a land where $400,000 is not an unreasonable amount for a family home.

All I got from this thread is that gaelic cowboy is poor and Warren Buffett feels guilty about not paying enough taxes.

For the poor people it's about soaking the rich. For the rich people it's about getting an angle on other rich people.

[Ironside]

First of all, there are no smart people in Indiana. Secondly, how many 300k jobs exist in middle America? I live in a land where $400,000 is not an unreasonable amount for a family home.

All I got from this thread is that gaelic cowboy is poor and Warren Buffett feels guilty about not paying enough taxes.

For the poor people it's about soaking the rich. For the rich people it's about getting an angle on other rich people.

You're telling me that it's going to take 2 years (if you earn 300k that is) instead of 20 to pay back that house?? Omg, that's horribly poor. Woe those poor souls earning nothing.

[Ronin]

You're telling me that it's going to take 2 years (if you earn 300k that is) instead of 20 to pay back that house?? Omg, that's horribly poor. Woe those poor souls earning nothing.

may I add, won´t someone please think of the children???

[Ironside]

may I add, won´t someone please think of the children???

Most certainly. Evidently, this low turn rate of house buying must be the reason why the US does poorly on child poverty. Those poor souls gets stunted growth since the houses are too small and the parents cannot afford to buy new houses as fast as the children grow. Seeing those children walking around their outgrown houses are a horrible blight on the otherwise magnificence of the US.

Obviously this can only be solved by reducing the taxes. Lower taxes today, give your children a new house tomorrow.

[Major Robert Dump]

First of all, there are no smart people in Indiana. Secondly, how many 300k jobs exist in middle America? I live in a land where $400,000 is not an unreasonable amount for a family home.

All I got from this thread is that gaelic cowboy is poor and Warren Buffett feels guilty about not paying enough taxes.

For the poor people it's about soaking the rich. For the rich people it's about getting an angle on other rich people.

I can't figure out if you are agreeing or diagreeing with me. Indiana was just an example. If you make a 300k per year salary then you are not middle class.

But for your last sentence I would add...... "and denying that they are rich."