“Rich” people should pay more taxes….Just not me…..

[Coronita]

Well, not like a lot of us already didn’t know this….We’ve been saying this all along….

Ubber rich don’t give a crap about tax policies…They work around them, regardless of what they are.

Lol….

Welcome to the new hypocrisy.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/buffett-soros-join-list-billionaires-calling-tax-hikes-143349541.html

Buffett, Soros Join List of Billionaires Calling for Tax Hikes They Won’t Pay

Since Warren Buffett has once again entered the current debate over tax increases by calling for the federal estate tax to go up, it only seems fair to see how his latest round of proposed changes would actually impact him. Buffett is among America’s super rich, and his fortune, at $46 billion, is second only to Microsoft founder Bill Gates’.

Prior to his latest call for the upward revision of the estate tax, the Berkshire Hathaway Chairman has also recently called for income, capital gains and dividend taxes to go up too, explaining in a widely discussed op-ed in The New York Times (“A Minimum Tax For The Wealthy”) that higher tax rates over the years have had no bearing on investors like him.

As much as this may sound like selfless advice from a renowned financier who simply wants what’s best for America, in reality he’s immune from almost all of it. As I discuss with Aaron Brown, Risk Manager at AQR, in the attached video, Buffett’s do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do proposals seem to fit the criteria needed to be a patriotic millionaire.

“I just got fed up. It wasn’t just Warren Buffett. There’s been a half dozen of these things lately, and what I noticed is everyone is asking for taxes to be raised except the taxes they actually pay,” Brown told me on the sidelines of the Minyanville Festivus event.

So in that light, let’s look at the gap that exists between proposed tax hikes and actual impact.

The proposed income tax increase on couples earning more than $250,000 year: Buffett’s $100,000 a year salary is well known – as is the complaint that his poor, lowly secretary has a higher tax rate.

Then, there’s his support for the recommended adjustment to tax dividends and capital gains as ordinary income instead of at the current 15% rate: Berkshire doesn’t pay a dividend and Buffett never sells stocks.

And finally, we have his newest pitch to raise estate taxes: He’s already pledged most of his fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and said the rest will go to the tax-sheltered philanthropies his children run. The Wall Street Journal nailed the Oracle of Omaha earlier this year, saying Buffett would not only avoid the so-called Buffett Rule, but he actually told the throngs who flock to his annual meeting to “follow my tax dodging example” and give their money away.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for trust and foundation philanthropy. In fact, I fear that this critical giving component of our society would suffer as a result of tax increases on “the rich.” What irks me, and many others, is the flawed thinking that contends that these populist-inspired tax increases are the solution to all of our fiscal problems, when in fact they would barely make a dent in the deficit. And even then, these projected increases in tax revenues under different rate scenarios over a 10-year period would not only likely prove to be all wrong but also probably carry serious unintended consequences as well.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
Buffett, Soros Join List of Billionaires Calling for Tax Hikes They Won’t Pay

[/quote]

This isn’t true. I have no idea about Soros, but Buffett released his 2010 tax return info. He also made a pretty specific proposal. And his rule would have increased his tax by over $5 million, almost doubling what he actually paid.

[XBoxBoy]

You’re just upset because you don’t qualify for schemes that would let you pay no taxes.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]
Buffett, Soros Join List of Billionaires Calling for Tax Hikes They Won’t Pay

[/quote]

This isn’t true. I have no idea about Soros, but Buffett released his 2010 tax return info. He also made a pretty specific proposal. And his rule would have increased his tax by over $5 million, almost doubling what he actually paid.[/quote]
$5M from a net worth of $40B+? That’s less than 0.01%. chump change? What’s your average joe tax burden compare to their net worth?

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]
Buffett, Soros Join List of Billionaires Calling for Tax Hikes They Won’t Pay

[/quote]

This isn’t true. I have no idea about Soros, but Buffett released his 2010 tax return info. He also made a pretty specific proposal. And his rule would have increased his tax by over $5 million, almost doubling what he actually paid.[/quote]
$5M from a net worth of $40B+? That’s less than 0.01%. chump change? What’s your average joe tax burden compare to their net worth?[/quote]

I have no idea. I’ve never seen annual income tax liability compared to net worth. Are you proposing an annual estate tax?

[enron_by_the_sea]

I read this article before and it seemed like an article written by someone who has a grudge against Buffett.

Basically the author is trying to suggest that Buffett somehow benefits on taxes because we don’t tax an activity that he does not do. ( i.e. paying a dividend or selling a stock)

Even if an activity that is NOT done should be taxed, it is no way comparable to tax an activity that is clearly done more favorably to another activity that is also done. It is like me saying that let’s tax flu because his house appreciated 10K last year even if flu has not sold his house ..

So Buffett not selling a stock or not paying dividend is not even close in the “tax sin” list to Mitt Romney paying 15% on his income or benefiting from “carried interest”. if one would start equating an activity that is not done to an activity that is done then I am thinking that they really do not have any other argument to support their point!

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]I have no idea. I’ve never seen annual income tax liability compared to net worth. Are you proposing an annual estate tax?[/quote]
It’s only fair right? Why only make it harder for people who are trying to get rich. Why not also make current rich people not rich anymore like the rest of us or make it harder for them to stay rich.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]I have no idea. I’ve never seen annual income tax liability compared to net worth. Are you proposing an annual estate tax?[/quote]
It’s only fair right? Why only make it harder for people who are trying to get rich. Why not also make current rich people not rich anymore like the rest of us or make it harder for them to stay rich.[/quote]

Go with that. See how far you get. Not something I’d be in favor of.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]I have no idea. I’ve never seen annual income tax liability compared to net worth. Are you proposing an annual estate tax?[/quote]
It’s only fair right? Why only make it harder for people who are trying to get rich. Why not also make current rich people not rich anymore like the rest of us or make it harder for them to stay rich.[/quote]

Go with that. See how far you get. Not something I’d be in favor of.[/quote]
Not very far, since money speaks and money controls our policy. So, it’s never going to happen. At least not until the wealth gap gets to the point like China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc before the Communist party takes over.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]I have no idea. I’ve never seen annual income tax liability compared to net worth. Are you proposing an annual estate tax?[/quote]
It’s only fair right? Why only make it harder for people who are trying to get rich. Why not also make current rich people not rich anymore like the rest of us or make it harder for them to stay rich.[/quote]

Go with that. See how far you get. Not something I’d be in favor of.[/quote]

I think that’s the entire point. When you are the one that has to pay for it then people object. For instance what if we structured medicare/social security as a system where you put in $x and took out $y and we kept track of the net. If your net balance is negative when you die government gets first claim to your assets. I.e. you paid in $200K to the system and take out $400K government gets to liquidate your estate and take the $200K difference first before any inheritance is issued. That sounds pretty fair to me but nobody would go for that. Everybody thinks that’s unfair even though it amounts to the tax payer subsidizing somebody’s inheritance right now.

A free lunch is a pretty popular idea. I’m sure a free lunch poll without any mention of who’s paying would get 80% of the vote. If I say SK is the one paying for it then it’s still pretty popular maybe 70% of the vote. But if I start saying well everybody is paying a portion of it or we’re going to draw straws to determine who pays then it gets a lot less popular.

The social services we have are all nice to have ideas and if we could afford them that would be great, but when you can’t you need to start making hard decisions. We could certainly provide basic shelter, food, clothing and medical services to the 60-70 million Americans in the social safety net system for less than the current $2 trillion, but it would amount to a drop in lifestyle. You’d lose a lot of choices about where you live and what you eat, but you wouldn’t be in the street or starving like some seem to suggest.

[moneymaker]

If you divide $2 trillion by say 65 million and then take out 20% for overhead you’ll end up with $24 thousand. Not much to support a family on. Remember landlords get a significant portion of this money, so ultimately the rich are affected by spending cuts. I think the Mormon’s have a good concept with having extra food stored up in the pantry. That’s going to be my next investment, just need a good app to track it so that I don’t end up throwing it out.
Actually I think the overhead might be even higher than 20%.

[Author]

Posts