°
forecast

Warren Buffett: Hike tax on $500K earners

Warren Buffett is proposing a higher threshold for an increased tax on the wealthy than President Barack Obama - the “Oracle of Omaha” says he prefers boosting taxes only on those making more than $500,000 a year, according to a New York Times op-ed published today.

Obama has proposed a $250,000 limit.

“I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so,” Buffett, who has endorsed Obama, wrote in The Times.

He also suggested a minimum 30 percent tax on income between $1 million and $10 million, and a 35 percent tax on amount above that.

“A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours,” Buffett wrote.  

Posted to: Business Federal Government Politico Politics

How to be civil in comments:

 No name-calling, personal insults or threats. No attacks based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. No writing with your Caps Lock on – it's screaming. Keep on topic and under 1500 characters. No profanity or vulgarity. Stay G- or PG-rated. Read the full rules here.

The vultures now decide which portions

to pick apart first. Never fear, your turn will come.

Buffet's taxes will increase

Buffet's taxes will increase regardless.

But will he pay?

Seems Mr. Buffet has been calling for raising taxes for years. Yet, his companies have been or are being sued by the IRS for 10 years (or more) in back taxes. Maybe we should look at Mr. Buffet, along with the president's other super wealthy celebrity supporters/co-conspirators and tax their incomes at about 90%. Not that it will solve anything as long as we're beholden to the phoney Federal Reserve (NOT a federal agency and holds no reserve) and their money (which ONLY Congress is authorized to coin/print). In the mean-time, let's work to overhaul the tax code and establish a fair tax, or better yet a national sales tax. Then we can eliminate the IRS too.

DavHat - One of the two parties

stood up for nonsensical, mathematics-defying economic and fiscal ideas. That party lost. Big time. Co-conspirators? That would be a decisive majority of your fellow citizens, right? Seems that most people don't buy into magical thinking when it comes to money

Don't like Mr. Buffet's message. Smear the messenger with phony tax evasion charges dreamed up at GOP propaganda HQ - whoops, I mean Fox News. This is called argumentum ad hominem and it is a very basic logical error.

Welfare for the wealthy

The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics.

Uh.

Speaking of welfare for the wealthy, you forgot to mention that Buffet is coming out with all this while Obama nixed the Keystone pipeline and Buffet owns the railroad that currently carries that oil.

Coincidence? I think not.

17 percent?

17 Percent is a higher rate than I've ever paid. America is a wonderful place where terms like 'fair share' have different meaning depending on your income. Want to make it fair? Let's all pay the same rate.

'Because they can afford it' should never be the justification for a tax increase.

Same Rate

Everyone should pay the same rate no matter what their circumstances. For example: 10% for all, if you make a dollar or a million. Then EVERYONE would have a vested interest in the success of this country and all would own an equal percentage of say.
If you don't pay taxes....the folks that do don't want to hear your bellyaching.

Mustang.Freddy

If you work for wages or are self-employed you are already paying 15% of your gross income BEFORE you even start to pay federal income tax. Your claim to never having paid as much as 17% is most likely inaccurate.

Super tiny tax rate for the rich......capital gains

There was, in fact, only one time that capital gains were taxed at the same rates that were paid by people who earned their money by working. That was during the years 1988 to 1990, as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 — a law championed by President Ronald Reagan.

Working?

You do realize that a lot more people than the rich have to pay capital gains taxes right? A lot of "working " folks will get hammered by a significant increase in CG taxes.

$3 trillion dollars

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project. Between 2001 and the current projected end of the Bush tax cut extension, tax cuts for the wealthiest 5 percent will cost the U.S. Treasury $1.184 trillion. If extended through 2021 as gop lawmakers propose, the total cost will exceed $3.2 trillion.

Championed by Ronnie?

The 88 TRA was a vast compromise bill in which the Democrats never lived up to their end of the deal. Now you wish to repeat that shameful act?

Ronald Reagan

" We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory some of those loophole were understandable, but in practice, they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing." ~ Ronald Reagan.

And that is the difference between greed...and sacrifice

for the common good.

Warren Buffet may be no Benjamin Franklin, but he most assuredly is no David Koch.

Buffet can afford it

The uber wealthy can afford it! "We the people" had better prepare for a tax hike as well. Our liberal leader who lied many times over will stick it to us very soon, "Caveat Emptor". And VBCC is soon to follow in the footsteps of the liberal leaders!

Reminder: If there is no

Reminder: If there is no compromise, there will be tax raises across the board. If there is a compromise, 98% of the population will not have a tax increase. Compromise is OBVIOUSLY the solution for the vast majority of posters on this board. Same with spending cuts. We must have compromise.

Usual complaint

"The proposed tax increase on the wealthy (Choose your description of 'wealthy') would have little or no effect on the debt reduction."
In other words, it doesn't do any good for one person to use a bucket to help bail out the boat because since it takes a great many buckets to do the job, one wouldn't make any difference, so might as well not use it.
I will say, though, that if taxes are raised on wealthy businesses, they will only be passed on to the end consumer unless there is a process to prevent it.

Right

So your plans to reduce the debt just include spending cuts...but let me guess not to the Defense Budget?

Sure cut the defense budget

AFTER you reduce the mission. Do not ask the military to 'make do' with whatever they are given, regardless of the mission.

Yes

So we do need 11 aircraft carriers, while next country in line has 1?

With the current mission we

need at least 12. Again, if you want to cut the budget and/or the size of the military make the mission match. Do not ask them to carry out a 12 or 13 Carrier mission with 10 or 11 Carriers.

Ok

But you really didnt answer my question...what is the mission and why do we need so many? The other countries seem just as safe with 1, or heck none.

The other countries feel safe

with one or none BECAUSE we control the sea lanes and keep them safe for everyone. Why do we need 12 or 13? One each required by the current mission for the East Coast, West Coast, Japan, Med, Indian Ocaean & Gulf. A ship cannot be combat capable 24/7/365 indefinitely. That reqires 1.5 to 2 ships per mission. Then there is training (for the ship and the airwing) and contingency requirements based on treaty obligations. Like I said, 12 is the absolute minimum. We have been leaving the Med uncovered for years because the force has already been drawn below that minimum.

WTH?

How did this article on Buffett's tax proposal turn into a debate about aircraft carriers? Unbelievable.

Remember Rumsfeld

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

And that was for a war of our choice…Iraq.

Rumsfeld and his cohorts rushed into a war that could have waited, and sent our men into a meat grinder with inadequate armament.

But they were Republicans. "Bring 'em on" kind of guys.

Unless of course, they actually had to carry a weapon into war themselves.

They asked the military to "make do".

We can afford to cut the military and still be the world "cop".

We can be smart about it. Not like the aforementioned incompetents.

Len, you illustrate my point perfectly

If you remember the time frame correctly the state of readiness of our armed forces was down precisely because of the policy which I ask not to be repeated. We went through many years of diminishing force levels & resources WITHOUT DIMINISHING THE MISSION. Then when we NEEDED the force to accomplish just a portion of the mission they were supposed to be prepared for (by YEARS, not months, of preparation & training) we were exactly in the position Rumsfeld described. All I am saying is do not do that to our men & women AGAIN.

We can diminish the mission

without sacrificing our security.

Get out of Japan, Germany and myriads of other countries where we have substantial military presence.

We should be out of 2 ground wars.

Intelligence, covert ops, drones and cyber security is where we need to allocate the resources, IMHO.

10-11 carrier groups would be more than adequate to back us up.

I never said we couldn't

But that is a totally different discussion. The firs question in that discussion is, "What are our treaty responsibilities and how do we go about changing them?"

That is a good point, and a good start

But it is about time that other industrial nations spend a little of their own money on defense.

The time is long past to worry about the ascendancy of another Imperial Japan or a German war machine.

They are pretty much on our side now.

I think.

Clarification

My comment was based on the rationale and statements made by those under the (diminishing) spell of Grover Norquist, in that more taxes on the wealthy are ineffective in reducing the deficit. Strictly an observation.

The president should stay with $250K..........

1. Reduce tax rates = Protect the super rich
2. Curtail deductions = rob the middle class
3. Broaden tax base = tax the poor more

What is a 'fair share?'

Looking only at the income tax, "... the top 1 percent of American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent."

But people often point out that lower income groups pay FICA taxes.

"But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income."

http://tinyurl.com/cfjxblf

So, what does it take to be a 'fair share?'

Would 4 times the middle class rate be enough?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49939444

Go back

To the pre-Reagan Rates or even the Bush I ones.

Go back?

So, it is your position that because tax rates were even more immoral in the past, that makes immoral rates OK now?

Would you then agree that because slavery existed before the Civil War, it would be OK to bring back Jim Crow laws?

Wrong is wrong.

What is immoral about taxes?

What is immoral about taxes? Let's don't forget that wealthy people derive most of their income from the middle class.

There is nothing immoral about taxes when

they are used for their rightful purpose - to fund the necessary functions of government. When the state uses the power of taxation to take from the rich and give to the poor it grossly exceeds the function of government (actually, engages in acts that government is supposed to oppose) and is therefore acting immorally. As to your point about where wealthy people derive their money here is the key difference - they get their money from the middle class by the voluntary participation of the middle class.

A 'fair share' is

whatever they can get away with. The goal is not fairness.

John Adam's warning

When our 2nd President, John Adams warned "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." he wasn't talking about Generals cheating on their wives, he was warning us of exactly what is happening.

A majority of our people have become corrupt, and seek to take the rightful earnings of others through the proxy of government, as though committing robbery with a ballot is any less stealing than using a gun.

We have become a nation of thieves, stealing from those who have attained success by providing us with value in our purchases and worse, from our grandchildren, in order to marginally lighten our load today.

Who appointed John Adams, or

Who appointed John Adams, or even you, sir, as the constitutional spokesman for us folks in the 21st century?

What does the fact that it is now the 21st century have to

do with anything? The mere fact that you can phrase a question that way underscores your lack of understanding of the Constitution and the princples upon which it was crafted. Neither circumstance nor time can change immutable principles.

"Fair share" is not a goal

unless you are talking about each quintile paying 20% of the tax bill, which would be impossible at the lower income levels.

And fair share is not the reason to tax.

Paying bills is the reason.

And it is up to the political and economic (private sector) leadership to get us out of this mess. That is what leaders are supposed to do.

Don't expect the janitors and retail clerks to pull this off. They are frankly too busy trying to feed and shelter their families often with multiple jobs. 50% of us make less than $25K/yr.

And if the debt is that serious a problem, then we may have to go to those who have most of the per capita income and almost all of the wealth. That is, until the economy improves and the taxable base expands again.

There's your problem

If we 'go after' investment and small business income any more than we already do, the economy may never improve rapidly enough to exceed population growth and inflation, and we continue the downward middle class income spiral forever and the tax base continues to shrink.

But the investment classes haven't invested

in anything worthwhile for decades evidenced by our dearth of manufacturing and exports.

My earlier post about dropping corporate rates would do a lot more to ease our problem. It is complicated, but doable.

But until then recouping some revenue at slightly higher rates is not necessarily Armageddon.

Either the debt is a serious issue that must be dealt with quickly or it is not. If not, then tax increases are moot.

If so, then we have to rely on those who have most of the money, and that isn't the lower 80% of the country.

After all, we borrowed money to fight 2 wars and a drug bill in order to give tax cuts which the top parlayed into substantial fortunes.

Now we might have to pay some of it back.

Make up your mind

If the investing class has not been investing, then how has wealth continued to concentrate in the top tier?

It is not that they haven't invested, it is how, and you have pointed out the problem yourself.

What they haven't been investing in is US manufacturing. They have instead been investing in the financial sector, because that has been the highest return has been available in recent decades.

Of course, much of that is not really investment, it is going along for the ride as the Fed artificially pumps the economy. It will come to a bad end.

But again, the problem stems from government meddling in the economy. Absent the artificial returns from financials, the investments would go to industry.

Question for you

Is it right to tax the rich just because they have the most money?

Not really and I agree it could be counter-productive in egregious cases such as the pre-Reagan years or the 50's.

(Although a wealthy case arose then too even with top marginal rates of 90%)

But what if a major stimulus of the top quintile wealth accumulation over the last decade was paid for by government borrowing and putting all Americans on the hook to pay for it? And now that the lower quintiles are under or unemployed and their wages have gone down, the ability to draw more from that group is diminished.

That was my point in the last sentences of my previous comment.

Either increase taxes to fight a war, or borrow. We borrowed.

Payback is due.

Ifs

If the wars benefited the top quintile disproportionately, and

If the top quintile were alone, or at least in control of the decision to go to war, and

If it were not the right choice and the decision was based on profit alone, then yes, payback would be in order, however,

I don't know that the top quintile benefited. I would guess the retention bonuses and combat pay went primarily to those in the 2nd and 3rd quintiles. I don't know of many closely held defense contractors, so pension plans probably got most of those profits.

sorry if I didn't communicate well

The point was that the tax cuts benefited the wealthy at the expense of borrowing money from abroad to pay for them.

Yes, others benefited also, but mostly to just catch up to increased expenses for education and health care and to make up for diminishing wages.

But the cuts at the top allowed more gambling on Wall Street and amassed fortunes beyond the imagination.

That is what I meant.

If we had raised taxes to pay for the wars and drug bills, among other spending during Bush, then we would not be in the debt mess we have today.

So we had to borrow to make the tax cuts.

Should those who profited the most help to pay down the debt?

Still, no greater repsonsibility for the top

It is impossible to structure a large tax cut in a way that does not disproportionately benefit the top quintile in absolute numbers, but the Bush tax cuts were across-the-board and other quintiles benefited in greater proportion.

The share of tax paid by the top quintile actually increased as a result of the Bush tax cuts.

SO still, no greater responsibility for the war debts.

Perhaps the share of taxes relative to others

but it still left a lot of debt.

The share of taxes doesn't equate to actual amounts needed to pay for whatever expenses we incurred.

If our debt is so dire that it threatens our security, then where do we get the money?

Cut expenses? No question.

But you cannot get the proverbial blood from a stone.

That leaves those whose fortunes were enhanced greatly thanks to government borrowing rather than taxing.

In the old days, wars may have fought by the lower classes, but at least the nobility paid for them.

Evidently that is not the case anymore.

also if

I don't think the top quintile was any more involved in the decision to go to war than others, we were all pretty angry at the time as I remember it.

As far as the decision to go to war and stay there for over a decade, that was a really a dumb decision, but I am in the top quintile, ans I am sure I was not consulted on that.

The decisions to go to war are debatable, the decision to nation build less so, but I don't think profit much entered into it for any quintile.

So, all in all, I don't see where the top quintile bear any more financial responsibility than any other.

My goodness, I am not communicating well

It is not about the decision to go to war.

It is about the decision not to pay for it.

Is it moral to expect future generations to pay for wars or any other program so the present one doesn't have to?

I believe this goes against your principles regarding your grandchildrens' burdens.

You are concerned about the debt we are leaving future generations.

Well, how about asking those who profited most from borrowed money to help make it right?

Not those who made money directly off the war, but those whose taxes were cut despite our nation's spending rising to cover wars and expensive entitlements such as the drug bill.

The parable of the fluke

A successful parasite(public sector) drains no more of its host's(private sector) energy than it needs. If it takes too much of its host's resources, the host gets sickly and goes off its feed, and there is less energy available for both host and parasite. If that trend continues, the host dies and takes the parasite with it.

Some years ago, my wife's grandfather's cattle started dying, and we had necropsies done to determine the cause. The vet told us the cattle were infested with liver flukes. I consulted a parasitologist. He told me there were no more liver flukes than there had been all along, but a year of high water had shrunk the pasture and the cattle could not support the same number of flukes in bad times as in good.

No matter what the final

No matter what the final number is, Legislators must do four things; cut expenses, increase tax revenue, reform and simplify the tax code, and modify entitlements to ensure their continued viability. All these elements will be required to decrease the debt and provide the certainty necessary for the private sector to start investing again. Further, public investment in infrastructure, education, and science and technology are crucial to provide the private sector with the assets we need to be successful.

Frankly this is not a new formula, but under Norquist and the no tax republicans it has been destroyed by the greed and selfishness of the plutocrats and the 1%. Their self interest and power unbalanced the equation that works for us.

Interesting

comment coming from a greedy, selfish, power hungry, 1%er developer.

If you want to raise tax revenue

raising tax rates on the rich is the exactly wrong thing to do. History shows the results of that policy very clearly. In today's global economy the results would be even worse.

Yes

Who did the Clinton Economy go after Bush raised rates? If you can afford to ship your money overseas and have tax lawyers you can afford a small % increase.

The economy!

The economy went south after Clinton because of the Tech crash. During the tech boom of the 90's, the market exploded without any evidence of profit by the techies. When the market realized that profits were not forthcoming, it crashed. Clinton benefitted because he was fortunate to be in office during the tech boom. Happens all the time, i.e. Obama is saddled with the debt created by Bush and Clinton; Bush through the wars, and Clinton signing legislation that sunk the housing market.

Would you care to elaborate

Would you care to elaborate on the "history" that shows the results of that policy? Not the Ayn Rand fictional history, real history that shows a few percent increase on rates for the very wealthy when top rates were below 50% had any impact on anything? You can't just make up facts, the truth is that no study has been able to show a correlation between small increases in top marginal rates of the very wealthy in a low tax environment and economic growth. We do anecdotally know that we significantly reduced top marginal rates in the G W Bush years and our economy suffered a significant reduction in growth, is that perhaps the "history" you were thinking of?

Sure, but let me correct a few thing first

Your assertion that about 'a correlation between small increases in top marginal rates of the very wealthy in a low tax environment and economic growth' is correct BUT that is not the issue. We are discussing what happens to tax revenue when tax rates are increased on upper income earners. What has been studied and shown is that the small initial increase is ALWAYS followed by larger and larger increase when the initial small increase does not result in the increased revenues expected. Also, the increases trickle down to the lower income brackets at the same time. Also, Dubya's tax policy DID result in inceased economic growth. The recession was not a result of tax policy. Study - see T. Sowell's monomgram 'Tax Cuts for the Rich'

Disagree!

Raising taxes on the rich will have very little impact on our problems. I was just pointing out that it is an exercise in futility to expect success without economic expansion. The reason that this is an issue is that Obama emphasiezed and supported it to get himself reelected. Economic growth and economic expansion is the only road to cure the ills of our economy.

Clinton's tax increases

resulted in the biggest economic expansion in history. And most of it was by investment by the top income levels.

Bush's tax cuts preceded the economic growth by allowing more spending and very little investment. And that spending expansion was by the middle class and its credit cards and home equity. It was a house of cards, literally.

At the same time consumers were loading up on debt, so did the government because there was not enough revenue to cover wars and other programs shoved through by the GOP.

Bottom line, investors invest when opportunity arises, not when they get a 5% tax cut at the margin.

And, our consumer based GDP was bound to fail as credit was maxed out.

Clinton's boom

Was a gift from Ronald Reagan.

We enjoyed a 'peace dividend' at the end of the Cold War allowing a huge reduction in force in our military as we no longer had to be manned for a conventional war in Europe or a Nuclear war. Clinton grew government in every sector except defense, hiring (IIRC)1.5 public sector workers for every soldier released.

Add to that continued artificially low interest rates and you have fodder for a series of Tech, dot,com and communications bubbles that LOOKED like a good economy though they had no real economic basis.

Those bubbles collapsed just in time for the hapless Bush to inherit them.

Mostly false!!

Clinton 1993 and 1994 tax increases did not create a booming economy, they actually created quite the opposite in lax growth. His tax cuts of 1995 along with controlled government spending however did precede an economic boom that lasted until the last 2 quarters of his second term, then a recession started.

Read
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

I do agree that the imminent crash of our economy was caused mostly by maxed out credit and home mortgage defaults but the "buy it on credit whether you can pay or not" cycle started long before Bush or Clinton. The CRA comes to mind very quickly.

Increase revenue!

The best way to increase revenue is throughh expansion of the economy, and job creation. Congress has to create a pathway so that corporations continue to remain and do business in this country. Since we are in a worldwide economy, we need to encourage foreign corporations to set up business here. The foregoing is certainly difficult considering that corporate profits are taxed at 35%, the highest rate in the industrialized world. Even if corporations paid substantially less taxes on their corporate profits, the increased employment would more than make up for that decrease. Moreover, the job creation reduce the lines at the unemployment and welfare offices. Just my thought.

Don't forget the spendaholic

Don't forget the spendaholic Democrats, although I will say, during the Bush years, both parties forgot their way.

Warren Buffet being dishonest

I read his other interviews and OP-ED on this subject, and he's not talking much about capital gains and dividends which is where he and other established Forbes 400 wealthy make the bulk of their money now. While he engages with his "throw the dogs some bones" talk, I see right through him. Sure, Obama proposes going from 15% to 20% on capital gains - no big deal to Buffet and the others. But let them get their capital gains taxed at those higher rates he's pushing for regular income, and then see how he deals with it. For seniors and others not making the big money on their holdings/savings, I could see a lower Capital Gains rate beneath some figure.

You first

So Buffet the billionaire is good enough to suggest that those who earn far less than he does be subject to a new higher tax rate.

How about Mr. Buffet putting his money where his mouth is and start paying a 30% rate today. Walk the walk.

I would love to know what his actual tax rate is. I would suspect it isnt 30%.

True

Its probably along the lines of Willards.

Even if taxes are raised on

Even if taxes are raised on the wealthy, they will not pay that amount as they are likely to still have deductions that will lower that rate. They will pay more, but don't forget that the middle class will be making sacrifices as well via Social Security and Medicaid. Everyone is going to have to pony up. Also, if a deal gets made with both tax increases and spending cuts, the markets will likely respond positively, boosting stocks and hiring.

GOVERNMENT LIES

For all you people that by into this garbage, God help you. All this man is doing is destroying the dream of American Entrepreneurship. I assure you, we will all pay in the end.

For clarity

it is not the rate that counts but the actual liability owed after deductions and credits. The couple making $140k would actually have a rate of 19% so their liability before deductions and credits would be about $27k. Add in all of the deductions and credits and their actual liability goes considerably down just like the "rich" but the upper middle class and the rich still pay over 90% of the income taxes collected. The bottom 50% pay nothing plus the bottom quintile (20%) is actually a tax collector to the tune of about 9% due to EITC and deductions/credits.

Taxing the "rich" to feel good about "fairness" will not have any effect so the middle class is next in line for the socialist agenda.

Loop-holes

"Loop-holes" are tax dodging if it is written in the code according to the way our politicans have had it done. Get real......cut the spending. Even a so-called drunken seaman stops spending when he runs out of money. If "they" tax evryone 100% who who takes the risk and makes over a million it would be only a drop in the bucket.

An idea or two

Loopholes are there for one reason, to be exploited. Leave me 100% of my income, institute a national sales tax, and tax me when I pay for goods/services. No loopholes, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, regardless of income. Those with expensive tastes will pay more into the system.
Get us out of these free trade agreements that are NOT free. The gov't used to get it's revenue from TARIFFS. Tax ALL imports.
Scale back entitlements. Public assistance should be paid back (community service) and not FREE! Welfare shouldn't be a career/retirement program. Assistance should be temporary.
Get rid of redundant gov't agencies and turn others over to the private sector. Let the States decide which programs work.

Aren't you overlooking the

Aren't you overlooking the tons of money the wealthy spend when they are abroad?

That's a distraction

When you buy a car in another state and register it here, you pay personal property taxes.
The process is already in place.

Even more to the point...

If they tax everyone at 100%, it still wouldn't pay off the deficit. Either way, you eventually run out of other people's money. I'll be in the Gulch...

Even more to the point...

If they tax everyone at 100%, it still wouldn't pay off the deficit. Either way, you eventually run out of other people's money. I'll be in the Gulch...

In the first place the

In the first place the income tax and the federal reserve is the biggest scam ever perpetuated on America. The entire concept was a lie from the get-go. That "only the rich" would ever have to pay and even that was a mere 1%. Now fast-forward to today and we're all rich. The present tax code is a creation from the pinko commies (now called the democrat party) as it was Woodrow Wilson (a democrat from Virginia) who signed it into law.
Taxes should be uniform across the board. It shouldn't cost Warren Buffet any more percentage wise than anyone else. It proves that the tax code punishes success and rewards failure. The best thing that could happen to this country would be to abolish The 16th Amendment and impose HR25 aka The Fair Tax.

A distraction, not a solution

"If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it'd pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won't work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it.

The Buffett Rule would raise $3.2 billion a year, and take 514 years just to pay off Obama's 2011 budget deficit." -Mark Steyn

So, while it is fun to kick stuff like this around, it is no significant part of the answer to our problems.

Reducing the size of government and entitlements are the only answer.

FairTax?

Wonder if Buffett knows of the best solution to creating fairness in society called the FairTax?

I support raising the tax rate IF someone can give the figure of what tax rate do we need to raise taxes to equal current spending.
Is it so hard for anyone to tell what the tax rate needs to be to equal spending?

The GOP should agree to raise taxes on the rich automatically in three years and cut spending NOW. What is there to fear since everyone LOSES?

Income falls below 500k

Small business owners reduce salary/ income below 500k in 3...2...1...

warren buffet speaks with forked tongue...

...in a deal with the Administration, Buffet's Railroad will not lose business in so called dirty energy deliveries from Canada by overlooking the same restrictions forced on other railroads.

Time to try something different

There's hardly an American out there that won't agree that our tax system is in bad need of an overhaul. The problem is, no one can agree on how it should be done. We've put so many different loopholes and exemptions into it that people scream when theirs are proposed to be cut.

People need to understand that ANY overhaul is going to hurt someone. Instead of just bickering about it, it's time to try SOMETHING different. Put it up for a five year trial. Try FairTax for five years along with a national sales tax. See how the economy and the American people do then. If it doesn't work out, try something else, and keep trying until we find something that does work.

Gee I wonder

How much of a discount does old Warren get off the billions he owes the IRS for shilling for Slumbama???

"Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year."

"And if [Buffett's] firm wants to keep its tax bill low, well, that’s its right," The Post editors write. "But it would be nice if this 'pro-tax-hike' tycoon were a bit more honest about it."

No, I have the answer...

No you don't my answer it better

Is not, mine is better

We need to do this

No, that won't work this is what we need to do

That's crazy, and it won't work

Will too.

And it goes on and on.

No matter what some people are going to be hurt, like it or now...that is really the answer.

Will the fiscal cliff be resloved? Never to everyone's satisfaction.

Do we need tax reform? Sure we do, but some of you won't like it.

If some of you knew all you think you do then you would not be on here, you would be in Washington working on the problem, and contnuing to say your answer is the best.

I think we all need to remember this is only an opinion page, and not one of you has the answer.

Math has the answer

Most of the argument can be eliminated by simple arithmetic.

If you taxed Mr. Buffet's target group of those making over $500K at 100%, the effect on the deficit would be negligible. There just aren't enough of them. So, any 'solution' based on that demagoguery can be rejected.

For raising taxes to have a significant effect on the deficit, taxes would have to be raised on everyone. And by a lot.

The alternative is to reduce spending. If we cut spending to what it was at the end of Bush's first term, adjusted for inflation, we would have no deficit.

That would be difficult for demographic reasons, but with a redefinition of the military's mission, and reduction in a number of other agencies, it could be done.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

Daily Deal |  | Promote your business