|
In an op-ed piece published Sunday in the New York Times, Warren Buffett wrote (in the same common-sense folksy style readers of the Berkshire Hathaway annual newsletters will recognize) that he and his kind, the "super-rich", do not bear their fair share of the tax burden. Mr. Buffett has said repeatedly in the past that he believes he does not pay enough in taxes. This time, he dragged his friends into the mix. Among many inconvenient truths in the article, Mr. Buffett said the following, which struck a particular chord with me:
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.
No doubt the libertarians and the elitist right will not be happy to read this. Indeed, they have already started to fire back.
Their arguments are somewhat hollow though. They argue that Buffett's "proposal" (their words, not his) will only be a drop in the pond when it comes to balancing the budget and as such should be dismissed. But if you read Buffett carefully, he speaks nothing about a complete solution for the crisis, only about equal burden for all. How the world's third wealthiest man can come under reproach (from far lesser men, in my opinion) for his opinions on investment, entrepreneurship, and taxation is behind me.
The biggest failure of the Bush administration to me, the one that turned me off to Republicans/Tea Partiers more than anything else, was just how much they catered to the wealthiest Americans. What made it worse was that they bribed the middle and lower class with pennies so that the richest among us could have more mountains of gold. The bottom 90% was swindled and so many are still too ignorant to see it. They coerce people with claims of shared moral high ground when all it really is blackmail and fear mongering...all with one hand in their constituents' purses.
These "representatives of the people" are nothing more than hired servants to the highest bidder. Is it any wonder that when adjusted for inflation, the average worker is making less now than they did 30 years ago while executive compensation explodes by hundreds of percent? In killing organized labor, they told us that they were protecting us from the evils of socialism and promoting fairness throughout. One can't help but feel that they're simply building a castle for the wealthy complete with moat.
Someone once told me that integrity is doing the right thing even when nobody's looking and even when you stand to lose from it. In our courts even, we recognize that when people make an admission against their own interests (when it comes to hearsay rules), they are more than likely telling the truth. That's why I trust Mr. Buffett more than some of his counterparts. If I had to choose a mentor among anybody in all the earth, I can't think of anyone from which I could learn more. When someone as successful and honorable as Warren Buffett speaks, I think we should listen.
EDIT: To stem the tide, of "why doesn't he just give his money away then" comments, Mr. Buffett's has already willed his fortune to The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation upon his death. Every penny he earns now, he earns for future charity.
|
You should've seen some of the comments on CNN. One of them was like "Why don't you just write a check. Thank you."
|
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o
|
On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o
That is a totally different issue, what does ''having money'' have to do with pointing out failures of a complete system.
|
On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o
Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not.
|
On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o
The issue isn't wealth distribution between one rich man and many poor families. The issue is taxation for the extremely wealthy. The OP was kind enough to clearly outline everything.
|
More taxes. Problem solved!
|
On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not.
Yep he's already promised his fortune to charity when he dies. There is not an ounce of hypocrisy in his words.
|
On August 17 2011 06:43 TurpinOS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o That is a totally different issue, what does ''having money'' have to do with pointing out failures of a complete system.
He's basically saying the rich should be taxed, the debt will go down and jobs will be made, right? If he cares so much why doesn't he give his money away to people that he thinks need/deserve it?
|
On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o
Strawmans should be a bannable offense.
|
On August 17 2011 06:44 Megatronn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:43 TurpinOS wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o That is a totally different issue, what does ''having money'' have to do with pointing out failures of a complete system. He's basically saying the rich should be taxed, the debt will go down and jobs will be made, right? If he cares so much why doesn't he give his money away to people that he thinks need/deserve it?
HE ALREADY DOES. For crying out loud. But you can't have continued economic growth by donating to the food bank.
|
Maybe we shouldn't debate what tax rates should be, but what is the appropriate level of government spending relative to GDP, then generate tax revenues for that amount. As it is now, tax increases merely result in more government spending, requiring additional tax income, and so forth. Let's figure out what and acceptable size of government is, and stick to that.
|
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already?
|
I saw this the other day, I'm really glad he wrote it, the unanswered rhetoric that politicians get away with these days is outrageous. I want to fucking explode with rage every time I hear some republican saying things like corporations and other profit seeking individuals avoid seeking profit because taxes are too high. It's so unbelievably retarded that I just can't even speak.
|
On August 17 2011 06:44 Megatronn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:43 TurpinOS wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o That is a totally different issue, what does ''having money'' have to do with pointing out failures of a complete system. If he cares so much why doesn't he give his money away to people that he thinks need/deserve it?
This (how much you think he "cares") has nothing to do with whether he's right or not.
|
Woow, this guy... pretty decent human being. I didn`t know you could be that rich and still have your original soul. Criticism is off. Sure taxing the super-rich won`t generate enough $$$ to make a significant difference, but that is not the point. Doing it will contribute t the problem AND is just sensible to do
|
On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o
He's earmarked virtually his entire wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with stipulations that the money would be given somewhere else if the foundation isn't donating them fast enough.
He does have a point, though. A huge chunk of the tax breaks that rich people and corporations have gotten in recent years have been spent buying treasuries. The theory was that the money would be spent making investments that would grow the economy. What happened is that they just loaned much of it back to taxpayers with interest.
|
On August 17 2011 06:44 Megatronn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:43 TurpinOS wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o That is a totally different issue, what does ''having money'' have to do with pointing out failures of a complete system. He's basically saying the rich should be taxed, the debt will go down and jobs will be made, right? If he cares so much why doesn't he give his money away to people that he thinks need/deserve it?
I'm fairly certain Warren Buffet's already donating a pretty ridiculous sum of money to charities. His interview here merely articulates his thoughts on how the extremely wealthy is not being taxed enough relative to those that are less wealthy.
|
On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not.
According to his statements that the rich should pay more taxes to the government, the fact that he's donating 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies is hypocritical. By donating to charities that HE favors, he denies the government about 60% of his wealth that would have been paid in estate taxes had he not made that selfish decision himself and left it to the government's better judgment.
|
Wow this is only on the first page, and I'm already facepalming from some of the responses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
