Not asking you to do anything. I am looking to have a civil discourse, with people open minded to look past a single parties demagoguery.
By the above statement, am I to conclude that you agree with the tax code as it stands? That it is equitable for the largest companies to pay 9% while most businesses pay 25%, and citizens pay upwards of 30%?
Dennis - As I have stated many times. I am all for a flat tax on all income generated in the US. Who knows, 10% may even be too high.
I just re-read my earlier post. It didn't seem as clear as I should have made it. I do agree with huge cuts in spending. I was just saying that some of the things on the list shouldn't be, and I am sure there are plenty of areas with room for deeper cuts.
- oshins
- 08-04-2011, 09:32 AM
- dbbogey
- 08-04-2011, 10:59 AM
Dear Oshins, I am not sure I agree with a flat tax but I understand your belief. However there is no way in the world the Democrats/Liberals would agree and pass it. The press would go nuts. The conservatives would be starving babies, holding a gun to the head of the country, killing older people and so on. 50% of this country pays no taxes what so ever and yet the president and liberals proclaims that the wealthy and middle class don't pay their fair share. The only people that seem to have a problem with this are the conservatives. George W. Bush spent like crazy and anytime you say liberals are tax and spend they throw out Bush and the sad part of that is they have a point. The liberals won't even talk about a balanced budget, which to me is ludicrus seeing as every person in this country has to live under a budget or face bankruptcy lose house car and anything left over. But not our own government.
In my opinion it does not matter how much we pay in taxes, D.C. will just spend more. We have a major problem in this country because of the entitlement mentality what is the government going to give me. And each side thinks they have to give us something so that we will elect them. Sincerely Dbbogey
In my opinion it does not matter how much we pay in taxes, D.C. will just spend more. We have a major problem in this country because of the entitlement mentality what is the government going to give me. And each side thinks they have to give us something so that we will elect them. Sincerely Dbbogey
- Whitedog
- 08-04-2011, 11:30 AM
Think of it this way. Taxes pay for civilization. Now, decide how civilized we want to be?
Personally, I'd miss Click and Clack, the Car Guys, if we lost NPR.
Personally, I'd miss Click and Clack, the Car Guys, if we lost NPR.
- Coolpops
- 08-05-2011, 10:59 PM
Not completely accurate to state that 50 percent of the people pay no taxes.
Yes, they may not pay Federal income tax, but everyone gets hit with state and
local taxes wherever they are. Lets not forget property tax too. I actually would
like to pay more locally than to the national government. At least I know they
money goes to my city/county/state than to D.C.
With that aside, I would still prefer the idea of a flat national tax.
Yes, they may not pay Federal income tax, but everyone gets hit with state and
local taxes wherever they are. Lets not forget property tax too. I actually would
like to pay more locally than to the national government. At least I know they
money goes to my city/county/state than to D.C.
With that aside, I would still prefer the idea of a flat national tax.
- Sophisticated
- 08-17-2011, 03:00 AM
Gentlemen,
Indeed this is a great issue, I ran across this article in NY Times worth a read.
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 15, 2011, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich.
Indeed this is a great issue, I ran across this article in NY Times worth a read.
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 15, 2011, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich.
Not asking you to do anything. I am looking to have a civil discourse, with people open minded to look past a single parties demagoguery.
By the above statement, am I to conclude that you agree with the tax code as it stands? That it is equitable for the largest companies to pay 9% while most businesses pay 25%, and citizens pay upwards of 30%?
Dennis - As I have stated many times. I am all for a flat tax on all income generated in the US. Who knows, 10% may even be too high.
I just re-read my earlier post. It didn't seem as clear as I should have made it. I do agree with huge cuts in spending. I was just saying that some of the things on the list shouldn't be, and I am sure there are plenty of areas with room for deeper cuts. Originally Posted by oshins
- Gladman
- 08-17-2011, 12:48 PM
I have NO problem with Warren Buffett giving the government more money than the current tax code takes from his pocket already. But he should put his money where his mouth is and announce that he has done that, instead of attempting to shame others who've worked hard and sacrificed more to get where they are. If he really believed what his PR firm ghostwrote for him in that op-ed, he'd have done it already. Or taken the same money and invested in jobs all around the country. Actions speak louder than words.
Also, his self-interest in raising capital gains taxes is astounding. A perfect excuse to move money out of the US economy. Buffett doesn't like democracy, he wants plutocracy.
ANYONE can get rich monetarily in the US if they are willing to sacrifice time, health, family, luxuries, liberty, etc.
Also, his self-interest in raising capital gains taxes is astounding. A perfect excuse to move money out of the US economy. Buffett doesn't like democracy, he wants plutocracy.
ANYONE can get rich monetarily in the US if they are willing to sacrifice time, health, family, luxuries, liberty, etc.
- Laz
- 08-17-2011, 07:03 PM
You can find someone that says any given program the federal government subsidizes is good. The catch is that in a free society anything worth funding will get funded at the state level or with private funds. If nobody step up to fund an activity then maybe it should not be funded. There are many federal programs in that catagory. Where in the constitution does the federal govt have the authority to do most of this stuff.
As for corporate welfare it should all be eliminated. However allowing a company to deduct the cost it expends to create an income is not corporate welfare. The example of deducting the cost of oil rigs used to find oil which then creates a taxable profit is not welfare or a subsidy. Now since corporations simply pass taxes on to the consumer why not have no corporate tax. Think about how that would incentivie companies to locate and manufacture goods here. That would crate more jobs that are taxed and would end up getting more money to the federal govt.
As for income taxes a flat tax would be great with no deductions. Think of the billions of dollars spent to comply with and enforce tax laws that would be saved.
On education we need to privatize the providers and tie the tax dollars spent to the kid. That way kids can go to high quality safe schoools regardless of thier economic status. Yes I know the rich kids can afford even better schools but that happens today. The one thing that is obvious is that the public school system has failed.
And finally can we quit wasting money trying to enforce stupid laws. If someone wants to use drugs they have the right to be stupid as long as the do not hurt anyone else. Sex laws are equally stupid and a waste of money.
As for corporate welfare it should all be eliminated. However allowing a company to deduct the cost it expends to create an income is not corporate welfare. The example of deducting the cost of oil rigs used to find oil which then creates a taxable profit is not welfare or a subsidy. Now since corporations simply pass taxes on to the consumer why not have no corporate tax. Think about how that would incentivie companies to locate and manufacture goods here. That would crate more jobs that are taxed and would end up getting more money to the federal govt.
As for income taxes a flat tax would be great with no deductions. Think of the billions of dollars spent to comply with and enforce tax laws that would be saved.
On education we need to privatize the providers and tie the tax dollars spent to the kid. That way kids can go to high quality safe schoools regardless of thier economic status. Yes I know the rich kids can afford even better schools but that happens today. The one thing that is obvious is that the public school system has failed.
And finally can we quit wasting money trying to enforce stupid laws. If someone wants to use drugs they have the right to be stupid as long as the do not hurt anyone else. Sex laws are equally stupid and a waste of money.