Why Doesn’t Warren Buffet Pay Extra Taxes?

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2211500

dkf  (1000+ posts)        Sun Oct-30-11 12:14 AM
Original message
Why Doesn’t Warren Buffet Pay Extra Taxes?
 This WSJ editorial caught my eye, because it makes a seemingly valid point about wealthy people who call for higher taxes on the rich.

I wish I had a dollar for every time a wealthy liberal has declared he thinks he should pay more taxes. That list includes Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bill Gates Sr., Mark Zuckerberg and even Barack Obama, who now says that not only should rich people like him pay more taxes, they want to pay more. “I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me,” he said of his tax-hike plan. “They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them.”
…
So why don’t they? There is a special fund at the Treasury Department for taxpayers who want to make “gift contributions to reduce debt held by the public.” But very few do. Last year that fund and others like it raised a grand total of $300 million. That’s a decimal place on Mr. Zuckerberg’s net worth and pays for less than two hours worth of federal borrowing.

I understand the basic satisfaction of saying, “Look, mister, if you really want to pay more taxes, no one is stopping you,” but I don’t think that it’s actually a very good argument. The reason why people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet advocate for higher taxes but don’t voluntarily pay higher taxes than the law requires is pretty obvious: If the US raised the top marginal income tax rate and the capital gains rate in order to try to collect more money from people like Buffet and Gates, this would affect all people in that tax bracket. (If the current tax brackets were used, that would man any married couple making more than $379,000/yr.) This would mean that while high tax advocates such as Warren Buffet would pay more taxes, their relative wealth compared to the other wealthy would remain the same. Thus, Buffet’s ability to buy or control things via his wealth would not diminish relative to the other wealthy.

On the other hand, if Buffet decided to simply write an extra check to the Feds each year for $10 million, the result would be that his relative income (and thus buying and influencing power) would fall somewhat relative to other members of is class. Now, as someone who makes a number of high profile donations, Buffet is clearly willing to give money away, but when he makes a direct donation to a non-profit he has a pretty good say in how that money will be used. If he simply writes a check to the Feds, he has very little. As someone who supports higher taxes, he’s clearly okay with handing more money over to the Feds — but I think it’s pretty rational that he’s not willing to do so in a way that reduces his economic power, and doesn’t do all that much to stem the budget problems.

http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/05/16/why-doesnt-...
 

 

Sarah Ibarruri  (1000+ posts)        Sun Oct-30-11 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. That's the right wing point of view when they want to shut up...
 the rich that want their taxes increased. And we know the right wing want to shut up anyone who expresses a point of view contrary to that of right wingnuts.

First non answer.

Swede  (1000+ posts)        Sun Oct-30-11 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
2. People that ask this question just don't get it.
 They never will.

Second non answer.

Roselma (280 posts)     Sun Oct-30-11 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. Relative wealth/relative earnings.
 No wealthy person wants to give away (lose) so much of his/her personal wealth/earnings as to lose competitive status. Imagine if Buffett gave away (lost) 1/3 of his wealth/earnings, but his competitor didn't. His competitor would then possibly overtake him, possibly by conducting a hostile takeover of his company or some other maneuver. If all wealthy people have to part with the same percentage of their wealth, they all remain at the same status point competitively

An attempt at tortured logic at least.

chollybocker  (1000+ posts)      Sun Oct-30-11 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
4. Why doesn't the Catholic church pay more taxes?
 Or some?

What a load of horseshit.

Back to normal.

Saving Hawaii (71 posts)      Sun Oct-30-11 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. dkf... it's an externality issue.
 Warren Buffett recognizes that if everybody of his wealth is paying a higher percentage, it generates a positive externality that he (and the rest) benefit from. If he simply goes out and donates all his money to the US government, it also generates an externality but he enjoys very little of it. Learn about game theory and cooperation. It'll explain the problem quite well.

The logic in your OP basically suggests that none of us should want to pay taxes. If I get away paying nothing and everybody else keeps paying, I get to enjoy living in the United States. But if everybody takes advantage of my logic this place quickly turns into Somalia. To ensure that a 'game' provides an optimal outcome, you do sometimes have to control players' options.

I guess out of the gibberish is that he wants to talk but doesn`t actually expect to have to walk the walk.

The Wielding Truth  (1000+ posts)       Sun Oct-30-11 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
6. Well, they are the job creators. Right? So they already give and give and give.
 If these fools are accusing their Gods of not writing extra checks to the government I say, "Oh no, please let them keep every bit of their extra income. They are our benefactors. I bow to you, oh great Billionaires.

This is not a land where we have lords and those who are unfortunate or even lazy are left to die. WE ARE a land of common good. That is how a country and it's economy remains stable. Selfishness and survival of the fittest is not found anywhere in any bible. Not even their holy version of the original Constitution.

Their logic is colder than Scrooge on his worst day. I shudder at their small world concept.

If it is so good for the those earning over $1 mil annually, who have had the benefit of lesser taxes over about the last 10 years and it will help so much for them to continue, then why has it only been detrimental to our economy as long as it has been in place?

Here's some study on it.
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89... 
 

Simple answer for you clueless fools.
They say that to get you idiots to fawn over them.
Just as Buffet says one thing while his company does the opposite.

[Airwolf]

The stupid is strong with the DUmp. Warren Buffet t OWED over 1billion in back taxes and there is nothing stopping him from paying those taxes except Warren himself.  Sorry DUmmies your lies have no power here.

[USA4ME]

Sarah Ibarruri
 
1. That's the right wing point of view when they want to shut up the rich that want their taxes increased. And we know the right wing want to shut up anyone who expresses a point of view contrary to that of right wingnuts.

IOW the right wing point of view is "put your money where your mouth is."  OK, I can live with that.  It's also a moral POV and the one held by real Americans.

.

[USA4ME]

Roselma

Relative wealth/relative earnings.

No wealthy person wants to give away (lose) so much of his/her personal wealth/earnings as to lose competitive status. Imagine if Buffett gave away (lost) 1/3 of his wealth/earnings, but his competitor didn't. His competitor would then possibly overtake him, possibly by conducting a hostile takeover of his company or some other maneuver. If all wealthy people have to part with the same percentage of their wealth, they all remain at the same status point competitively.

Saving Hawaii

dkf... it's an externality issue.

Warren Buffett recognizes that if everybody of his wealth is paying a higher percentage, it generates a positive externality that he (and the rest) benefit from. If he simply goes out and donates all his money to the US government, it also generates an externality but he enjoys very little of it. Learn about game theory and cooperation. It'll explain the problem quite well.

... To ensure that a 'game' provides an optimal outcome, you do sometimes have to control players' options.

They bend over backwards to defend Buffett not paying his "fair share" because by paying more without being mandated to do so by gov't decree might cause him to "lose competitive status."

They complain about how the rich use their wealth to crush the little guy, but then balk at the suggestion they could voluntarily give up more if they so desire because it would place them at a disadvantage of being able to equally crush the little guy with the other wealthy.  Does anyone believe they would hold the same view about the Koch Bros. voluntarily giving up their wealth to the US Treasury if it meant they would lose their competitive status?

Of course not.

They're hypocrites (which we already knew)!

.

[Wineslob]

I'm trying to figure out how this level of stupid does not result in death.

[delilahmused]

It's okay if their rich are stingy with their money because they spew the right words without ever having to practice what they preach.

Cindie

[Rugnuts]

couldnt the rich just file a 1090ez and not deduct shit?
that would increase their taxes wouldn't it?

[Ballygrl]

dkf  (1000+ posts)        Sun Oct-30-11 12:14 AM
Original message
Why Doesn’t Warren Buffet Pay Extra Taxes?
 This WSJ editorial caught my eye, because it makes a seemingly valid point about wealthy people who call for higher taxes on the rich.

I wish I had a dollar for every time a wealthy liberal has declared he thinks he should pay more taxes. That list includes Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bill Gates Sr., Mark Zuckerberg and even Barack Obama, who now says that not only should rich people like him pay more taxes, they want to pay more. “I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me,” he said of his tax-hike plan. “They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them.”
…
So why don’t they? There is a special fund at the Treasury Department for taxpayers who want to make “gift contributions to reduce debt held by the public.” But very few do. Last year that fund and others like it raised a grand total of $300 million. That’s a decimal place on Mr. Zuckerberg’s net worth and pays for less than two hours worth of federal borrowing.

That's what we keep saying!

[Ballygrl]

BTW, how come Warren Buffett doesn't pay the more than 1 billion he owes in taxes?

[RobJohnson]

Why do DUmmies care about taxes? We work, so they don't have to. 

[Janice]

Silly Dummies dont seem to realize that unlike 'wage earners' the (truly) wealthy live off of capital gains and dividends. The maximum tax on investment income is 15 percent. The typical "rich" person receives mostly "unearned income".  This is basically any income that you don't have to work for ... like interest, capital gains, dividends, rent paid on real estate, etc. There are also a number of ways in which you can make a lot of money in capital gains without paying any taxes at all.

Best of all (from a tax perspective) is real estate.  Theoretically, it's taxed as capital gains.  But you can make a lot of profit on real estate and pay almost no taxes at all, if you're smart about what you're doing. Furthermore, corporations themselves are taxed in a totally different way than individuals, making it possible for business owners to give themselves all kinds of incredible perks tax free (or nearly so).

People who get all of their income from long-term capital gains and qualified dividends will never pay a combined federal individual income and payroll tax rate of even 15 percent, no matter how much they make. That’s because the maximum tax on their investment income is 15 percent and they don’t face payroll taxes.

[LC EFA]

They bend over backwards to defend Buffett not paying his "fair share" because by paying more without being mandated to do so by gov't decree might cause him to "lose competitive status."

They complain about how the rich use their wealth to crush the little guy, but then balk at the suggestion they could voluntarily give up more if they so desire because it would place them at a disadvantage of being able to equally crush the little guy with the other wealthy.  Does anyone believe they would hold the same view about the Koch Bros. voluntarily giving up their wealth to the US Treasury if it meant they would lose their competitive status?

Of course not.

They're hypocrites (which we already knew)!

.

Funny how they seem to care about "competition" all of a sudden isn't it.

Their primary moral code abhors competition - wanting everyone to be made equal in all ways by government fiat.  How convenient that they're prepared to ignore their own demands when it suits their purpose to do so.

[diesel driver]

I'm trying to figure out how this level of stupid does not result in death.

Only because they (sometimes) still remember to breathe.

[miskie]

With all this talk about 'relative wealth', one would think they would be all for a flat tax structure....

[zeitgeist]

I'm trying to figure out how this level of stupid does not result in death.

Often times it does.  Darwin Award winners have to come from somewhere.