Warren Buffett demands to pay more tax

Mr Buffett said he had never known anyone to shy away from an investment because of high taxes

Warren Buffett has called for Congress to make him and his "mega-rich friends" pay more income tax.

In a piece in the New York Timesnewspaper, the billionaire investor and philanthropist said the rich should do more to help plug the deficit.

He called for a tax rise for those earning more than $1m (£600,000), and a higher rate for those on over $10m.

In a rebuttal of arguments made by Republicans, he said tax rises would not hurt investment or jobs in the US.

He told Congress to "stop coddling the super-rich".

"Our leaders have asked for 'shared sacrifice'," he wrote. "But when they did the asking, they spared me."

Challenge to Congress

Mr Buffett explained that, like many top earners, his income came entirely from investments rather than from employment, which are subject to lower taxes in the US.

He said last year he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4%, less than the 33% to 41% paid by the employees in his office.

He dismissed arguments made by senior Republicans, including John Boehner, speaker of the House of Representatives, that taxing higher earners more would damage investment and job creation in the US.

"I have yet to see anyone... shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gains," he said.

He pointed out that the effective tax rate paid by the highest earners was much higher in the 1980s and 1990s than in the last decade, and yet job creation was much higher in the earlier decades.

His proposed tax rises would not affect 99.7% of taxpayers, he claimed, adding that a 2% payroll tax cut passed in December should stay in place to help the poor and middle classes.

However, Mr Buffett also set a challenge for the Democrats who are set to form a special Congressional committee with Republicans to agree $1.5tn in budget savings.

He said "job one for the 12 [committee members] is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can't fulfil".

While Republicans have been implacably opposed to tax rises, Democrats have been loathe to cut healthcare and social security benefits that some economists claim will become unaffordable as Americans live longer and baby-boomers retire.

That is shocking that he only pays 17% tax while his employees have to pay 33-41%!

I'm glad he's said this, just shows the rich have been getting away with social responsibilities for too long!

Good for him!

i read this. amazing he would come out and say it

I personally think its crap... Why should the rich be punished for being rich? The taxes should be the same across the board... Just because someone worked hard to earn themselves a great living they shouldnt have to pay more just cuz they can

He's mentioned this kind of thing before, but he seems to be really getting vocal about it and pushing for serious change this time. Probably because he ain't gettin' any younger. The last time he brought this up I believe he said he paid less taxes in a year than one of his secretaries (or aides, I forget).

tinaz said:

I personally think its crap... Why should the rich be punished for being rich? The taxes should be the same across the board... Just because someone worked hard to earn themselves a great living they shouldnt have to pay more just cuz they can

Well, they certainly shouldn't have to pay less either. The rich have more defenders in this country than the poor. Yay capitalism and all its attendant values.

heartbeatocean said:

tinaz said:

I personally think its crap... Why should the rich be punished for being rich? The taxes should be the same across the board... Just because someone worked hard to earn themselves a great living they shouldnt have to pay more just cuz they can

Well, they certainly shouldn't have to pay less either. The rich have more defenders in this country than the poor. Yay capitalism and all its attendant values.

Thats why I said it should be the same across the board...

tinaz said:

heartbeatocean said:

Well, they certainly shouldn't have to pay less either. The rich have more defenders in this country than the poor. Yay capitalism and all its attendant values.

Thats why I said it should be the same across the board...

but the article goes on about how he pays half the tax rate of his employees

Warren Buffet oughta shut the fuck up. Nothing is stopping him from sending a check to the Treasury - and leaving it all to Uncle Sam if he feels like it.

If members of Congress (usually at the behest of the inhabitant of the White House) would stop spending money like pimps with a week to live, they wouldn't need Buffet's money.

[img:$uid]http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif[/img:$uid]

Genesia said:

Warren Buffet oughta shut the fuck up. Nothing is stopping him from sending a check to the Treasury - and leaving it all to Uncle Sam if he feels like it.

If members of Congress (usually at the behest of the inhabitant of the White House) would stop spending money like pimps with a week to live, they wouldn't need Buffet's money.

shut up? why? cause you disagree with him? and may I ask why you hate your cuntry so much and the values it was founded on?

but you are certainly onto something. it's perfectly okay for CEOs to have a million loopholes which make them pay less taxes than their secretary. sounds fair enuff. lawd...

there is only one thing more sick and twisted than the rich fucking others up the ass: people who get fucked up the ass by the rich, and yet all their life got brainwashed into believing that it's perfectly okay to be fucked up the arse. sheeps. surreal. only in da usa

[Edited 8/16/11 5:00am]

Genesia said:

Warren Buffet oughta shut the fuck up. Nothing is stopping him from sending a check to the Treasury - and leaving it all to Uncle Sam if he feels like it.

If members of Congress (usually at the behest of the inhabitant of the White House) would stop spending money like pimps with a week to live, they wouldn't need Buffet's money.

hyperbole, Gods gift to writers.

Genesia said:

Warren Buffet oughta shut the fuck up. Nothing is stopping him from sending a check to the Treasury - and leaving it all to Uncle Sam if he feels like it.

If members of Congress (usually at the behest of the inhabitant of the White House) would stop spending money like pimps with a week to live, they wouldn't need Buffet's money.

Reducing spending isn't gonna get us out of this mess.Taxes have to be raised as well,and why not start with the wealthy? Warren Buffett knows what he's talking about.

Buffett is right: Raise taxes on the wealthy

(CNN) -- In Sunday's New York Times, Warren Buffett discusses the need to raise taxes on the wealthy. He's absolutely right. Tax increases, in general -- as well as tax increases on the wealthiest households, in particular -- need to be a part of the solution.

Past major budget agreements, such as the 1983 Social Security reforms and the 1990 and 1993 budget deals, ultimately included both revenue increases and spending cuts. It's not hard to see why: Cutting deficits from both sides of the budget provides a sense of fairness, shared sacrifice and political equilibrium.

Also, raising taxes to pay for current spending has proved more effective at restraining spending than allowing the government to finance its outlays with deficits. Every time we have tried to cut spending by restraining taxes, we have failed. In the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan and in the past decade under President George W. Bush, taxes fell, but spending rose. The only time in the past 30 years when spending fell was in the 1990s, under President Bill Clinton, when taxes were also raised.

Even the massive tax increases during and after World War II -- amounting to a permanent rise of 10% to 15% of gross domestic product -- and the much smaller tax increases in 1990 and 1993 did no discernible damage to U.S. economic growth.

If we are going to raise taxes as part of the fiscal solution, the tax burden on high-income, high-wealth households needs to rise. The recently enacted debt deal contains only spending cuts and has little or no impact on high-income households. Rather, it puts the entire burden of closing the fiscal gap on low- and middle-income households. High-income households should not be exempted from helping resolve the nation's fiscal problem.

Households in the top 1% of the distribution can afford to contribute. They have done enormously well during the past 30-plus years. In 1979, their income accounted for 10% of total income. According to the most recent data (from 2008), their share of total household income more than doubled to 21%. In contrast, real income for middle-class workers has remained roughly constant over the same time frame.

There are, of course, better and worse ways to raise taxes. A general goal would be to broaden the tax base -- reduce the use of specialized credits, deductions, loopholes and so on -- and minimize the extent to which tax rates need to rise.

One good place to start? High-income households: Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can occur to 28%. This would affect only households in the highest income ranges, it would not raise their official marginal tax rate, and it would raise $293 billion over the next decade, relative to how much money would be raised according to current law, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This would be a small move in the right direction.

Of course, sticking to current law revenues -- that is, either not extending the Bush tax cuts after their scheduled expiration date of 2012 or paying for any extension with a reduction in various tax expenditures -- is even more important. Extending the Bush tax cuts would reduce revenues by about $2.5 trillion over the next decade, relative to current law. Counting net interest savings, it would cost $3 trillion. Letting the cuts expire could actually help economic growth since the lower deficits would more than offset the effect of slightly lower marginal tax rates, and it would be progressive. That would be a big move in the right direction.

Eventually, the nation will need to deal with the ballooning costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for an aging population. Even if substantial cuts are made to these programs, the combination of a greatly expanded elderly population and higher federal net interest payments than in the past (because of the higher public debt/GDP ratio) will create a need for additional revenues. There are good options there as well, including a value-added tax -- the equivalent of a national consumption tax and a feature of the tax system of every industrialized country except the U.S. -- and higher energy taxes, to promote a cleaner environment as well as raise revenues.

None of this means that the U.S. needs to move to European taxation levels. But between the depleted tax revenues we raise now -- the lowest share of the economy in six decades -- and the high taxes experienced in European countries, there is plenty of room to raise revenues in an economically sound manner to support a reasonable level of government.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of William G. Gale.

SoulAlive said:

Genesia said:

Warren Buffet oughta shut the fuck up. Nothing is stopping him from sending a check to the Treasury - and leaving it all to Uncle Sam if he feels like it.

If members of Congress (usually at the behest of the inhabitant of the White House) would stop spending money like pimps with a week to live, they wouldn't need Buffet's money.

Reducing spending isn't gonna get us out of this mess.Taxes have to be raised as well,and why not start with the wealthy? Warren Buffett knows what he's talking about.

You are wrong.

tinaz said:

heartbeatocean said:

Well, they certainly shouldn't have to pay less either. The rich have more defenders in this country than the poor. Yay capitalism and all its attendant values.

Thats why I said it should be the same across the board...

And how exactly is that "punishing the rich for being rich?" The rich should pay their fair taxes in their country and they are getting off scot-free. Why defend them?

I can't believe some of you people are defending ultra-billionaires right to keep all their money, most of which is gained by investing (not actual work) while the rest of the country has to give up a large portion of their working income in taxes.

Can you please explain why you think ultra-billionaires should not have to pay the same taxes as everyone else? Please?

Genesia said:

SoulAlive said:

Reducing spending isn't gonna get us out of this mess.Taxes have to be raised as well,and why not start with the wealthy? Warren Buffett knows what he's talking about.

You are wrong.

...says the other filthy rich billionaire economic xpert and investor.

Genesia said:

Warren Buffet oughta shut the fuck up.

Because freedom of expression is anti-American? Or merely because he doesn't agree with you?

"...G.E. skirted paying any taxes on $5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a $3.2 billion tax credit."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/g-e-paid-no-taxes-5-1-billion-20110325-082417-878.html

http://t.co/qFz6V4P

Read it and weep.

[Edited 8/16/11 8:43am]

heartbeatocean said:

I can't believe some of you people are defending ultra-billionaires right to keep all their money, most of which is gained by investing (not actual work) while the rest of the country has to give up a large portion of their working income in taxes.

the obvious explanation: total ignorance caused by propaganda and indoctrination since earliest childhood. lost cases. in a word, nothing new

[Edited 8/16/11 15:17pm]