You seem to say that the government should take 99% of everyone's money when they die because Buffet is going to do.

rickyp wrote:

No, RIckyP. One is a choice, and the other is many taken by the government. If Mr. Buffet chooses to give some to the government, that would be his decision.

How does this address the issue of the label "hypocrit" Ray and Steve throw down? The man is demonstrating his willingness to part with his own money by parting with his own money.

Besides that ...I'll point out that the three of you are focussing on calling Buffett a hypocrit but haven't ventured to address the central theme of his remarks. And that theme is that the increased taxation of the wealthy (returning to the levels before 2001) will have no effect on them investing or "creating jobs".

“That sounds like a lot,” The Journal notes. “But only $100 billion of that is projected savings from lower government debt costs. So the tax would actually raise $40 billion to $50 billion a year: equal to about 3% of the annual federal deficit”.

As The Journal notes, $50 billion a year is at least ‘something”, especially if an added tax on Americans earning over $10 billion were added to the mix. But left unsaid is the remaining 95% or so remaining in the U.S. deficit. Where that money comes from, Buffett isn’t willing to say (and in the Oracle of Omaha’s defense, nobody else seems to have a clue, either).

So even if taxes were raised on the wealthiest Americans, it’s highly likely that the amount would barely put a dent in the nation’s debt picture – akin to sending the best pitcher in this week’s Little League World Series up to St. Louis tonight to face Albert Pujols, Matt Holliday, and the rest of the Cardinal’s line-up

Buffett is wrong. Bad government policies play a major role in generating inappropriately high incomes, but singling out the super-rich is misguided. And the policy Buffett criticizes most -- low tax rates on capital income -- should be expanded, not eliminated.

The first problem with Buffett's view is that the number of super-rich is too small for higher rates to make much difference to our budget problems.

In 2009, the income earned by the 236,833 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $727 billion. Imposing a 10% surcharge on this income would generate at most $73 billion in new revenue -- only about 2% of federal spending. And $73 billion is optimistic; the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield.

Focusing on the super-rich also fosters a counterproductive attitude toward material success. The way to promote a hard-working, entrepreneurial and innovative society is to celebrate great wealth so long as it has been earned by legitimate means. When this is not the case, policy should target the wrongdoing directly, not demonize everyone who hits it big.

Most importantly, singling out the super-rich distracts from the real problem: the myriad policies that make no sense in the first place because they inhibit economic growth and that simultaneously redistribute from low-income households to the middle and upper classes.

The deductibility of home mortgage interest encourages excess investment in housing. High-income taxpayers get the benefits, since low-income taxpayers own little or no housing and do not itemize deductions in any case.

The favorable tax treatment of employer-paid health insurance generates overconsumption of health care and contributes to rising health care costs. The benefits go mainly to middle- and upper-income households, since those without jobs get no employer-provided benefits.

Numerous loopholes for favored industries in the corporate tax code distort the market's investment decisions and reward the well-funded and politically connected.

And it is not just the tax code that harms the economy while favoring the better off.

Excessive licensing requirements, permitting fees, restrictive examinations and other barriers to entry into medicine, law, plumbing, hair styling and many other professions are bad for economic productivity because they artificially restrict the supply of these services. And these barriers redistribute income perversely by raising incomes for those protected and raising prices for everyone.

Crony capitalism -- the special treatment of favored industries like autos -- runs counter to economic efficiency because it protects businesses that would otherwise fail, and it maintains high incomes for executives and shareholders.

The too-big-to-fail doctrine, exhibited most recently in the TARP bailout of Wall Street banks, distorts efficiency by encouraging excess risk-taking. Meanwhile, bailouts generate huge incomes for the lucky few who keep gains in good times and pass losses to taxpayers in bad times.

In contrast to these and other policies, the one Buffett criticizes -- low tax rates on capital income -- is beneficial for the economy, including lower-income households.

And the single reason that you make the arguement that "we can't raise taxes on the wealthy" is that it would strangle investment and tax creation. If it clearly doesn't as Mr. Buffett offers expert testimony and evidence towards, why would one continue to support them whilst the deficit grows and the middle class is shattered?

It is not hypocrituical of Buffett to examine the issue of taxation, whilst being more than willing to part with his wealth voluntarily.

rickyp wrote:oh despicable me...
I apologize Ray i was alluding to the Archdukes oblique reference tieing the Boss into Buffet.

rickyp wrote:Yeah, yeah... all rich people who advocate higher taxes are hypocrits if they don't unilaterally send in gifts to the government... Maybe they just want to be treated the same as other's in their income bracket? But can set aside their own self interest to examine the idea of taxation without self interest clouding their thoughts?

Here's the really important information Buffett imparts and which none of you have respond towards:
He's also saying that not taxing them doesn't lead them to invest, nor does taxing them. For the very wealthy investment activity isn't affected by taxation levels, except those who go to great lengths to hide their incomes in other jurisdictions.

The meme that we can't tax the "job creators" is dispelled by his testimony.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote: He's not a job creator.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:I have no gripe against the farm use deductions as they help maintain some semblence of rural land, and assist in proper development and planning of communities as they grow. Furthermore real estate taxes and assessments are insanely high, which is where the farm deductions came from in the first place.

Nothing more then anectdotal evidence about Warren Buffet's experiences?

If he wants to tax millionaires and billionaires, why doesn't he propose legislation on that basis.