Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 354 posts

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#281

Post by polshaw »

gaius wrote: post #238
cromulent wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. He's not trying to "make a donation", he's saying that everyone should share the burden - including himself and people like him. It's not just that the rich kids should pay for the park, it's that everyone but the rich kids are being asked to pay some extra.

Does Mr Buffett employ an accountant to do his taxes? Does said accountant employ any tax avoidance strategies?

He certainly doesn't employ all the tax avoidance strategies available to him.. implied here[1].

But lets not forget, he has to act in the interests of shareholders, not just himself, in his business interests.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY&t=2m34s

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#282

Post by JabavuAdams »

gaius wrote: post #274
JabavuAdams wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other people with incomes of more than $1 million. Would you have the same problem if that were $10 million, instead?

Why not $100,000? That's a lot of money too.

The amount matters.

At $100k I can't buy a nice house with 1 year's income, but at $10M I clearly can.

What was the point of your response, anyway? Please elaborate.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#283

Post by onemoreact »

gaius wrote: post #238
cromulent wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. He's not trying to "make a donation", he's saying that everyone should share the burden - including himself and people like him. It's not just that the rich kids should pay for the park, it's that everyone but the rich kids are being asked to pay some extra.

Does Mr Buffett employ an accountant to do his taxes? Does said accountant employ any tax avoidance strategies?

He does not need to do anything unusual to avoid paying taxes because the law is setup to give him such a low rate. One of my aunts was once audited by the IRS who is not going to do anything creative to help people out. Net result, her rebate was close to 1 million. She had a fairly competent Accountant and good records but several minor rules helped her out.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#284

Post by Egregore »

ck2 wrote: post #22

The problem is getting low to middle income people to stop voting against themselves. Good luck with that, they all seem to think they are going to be billionaires someday so better keep those billionaire taxes low. Either that or by bribing the wealthy with low taxes they might only ship out half the jobs overseas instead of all of them. It's just dumbfounding. Election after election, over and over.

Do you think in the interest of those people is rich people going to another country and paying there their taxes?

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#285

Post by onemoreact »

krschultz wrote: post #279
gaius wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's relevant. At his level, he can pay however much tax he wants, anywhere in the world, and this will always be the case. What he's calling for is other people paying more tax.

You fundamentally miss his point. Even without finding a thousand loopholes to get out of his taxes, he will pay a lower percentage just based on HOW he makes his money. 1) The payroll tax is capped, so a guy making exactly the income it is capped at, and a guy making 100x that, pay exactly the same payroll tax. No accountant required and it is an enormous difference. For Warren, that is millions of dollars right the…

In your example the person that was "taxed twice" has more money in the end because only his gains are taxed the second time.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#286

Post by seabee »

epscylonb wrote: post #263
seabee wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a flat percentage rate of tax with an exception for very low incomes That's not a flat tax, then, is it? It's progressive with two bands, 0% and x%. There is a real case for tax simplification, but the progressive nature of income tax is probably the simplest thing in the entire tax code ! It's the classification of different kinds of income and capital gains, exemptions and penalties for particular uses of money/a…

The reason I put fairer in quotes is because it is a term that can be argued over. Yes two bands, with the focus on making it attractive for people to earn money and pay tax, ideally the 0% band would be just enough to clothe, feed yourself and pay rent in a bad neighbourhood. Progressive is a word that seems to mean different things to the left and the right, I notice you didn't define it. As I said a flat tax is ec…

'Progressive' as used in the same context as your original post is basically a placeholder for 'benefiting the groups I care about'. It's not a meaningful word to use, and you even know that. Contrast with 'progressive tax', which is well-defined.

I don't understand the line of thinking which effectively says "people don't want to earn £2 if they have to pay £1 in tax". Erm, you're still richer than you were if you didn't earn more. The only possible argument against this is if earning another £100k takes more amount of effort it took to earn your first £100k. But if you know anything about making money it doesn't work that way. With more capital comes greater opportunities. You can afford an accountant to manage your money, you have more investment options, and so forth; and you still have enough to spare for a comfortable lifestyle.

A flat tax implies that a dollar is worth just as much to Warren Buffett as it is to someone flipping burgers, which demonstrates a complete lack of perspective.

Put it this way: everyone's living expenses are, say, £12k. now if you're earning a median wage that leaves you £10k to invest how you like. If you're earning £50k you get to invest £38k. assuming the schemes offer the same rate of return, guess who is going to amass £50k first? Hint: it's not the guy who has to get a 5x return on his investment.

The higher rate income tax is an incentive to invest the money you receive back into the economy via business or charity, where it is taxed at a lower rate or even not at all, rather than spent on your own personal gain. Why should it scare you that the government would take that money? BTW, investment in financial instruments of dubious benefit is giving money to the financial system (this should really be obvious...) so it does contribute to the economy, but there are almost certainly better ways to do so.

The problem with the libertarian perspective is that it irrationally assumes the best of people when there is no incentive for them to do so. If a billionnaire can afford to fund all the services he requires that someone on the poverty line would depend on government for, why should the billionnaire give his money away? If you want a society you have an obligation to provide for one, if you believe it is unfair that someone with broader shoulders should carry more weight, then perhaps you should consider how fair it is that he has broader shoulders and others do not.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#287

Post by tomjen3 »

ryannielsen wrote: post #208
tomjen3 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The attacks on him is just and fair because he demands the right to take by force other peoples money. The rich already pay the most tax. Why should they pay more?

I honestly don't understand your question. I don't mean that statement to be argumentative – I really don't understand. Are you saying the top 1% should pay what I paid in taxes last year? I paid around $100k. I'm not sure why someone making millions to billions a year should only pay $100k. If you assert I should pay the same as high-income individuals, should someone making far less than I am also pay $100k? To fli…

I was just trying to point out the fact that taxes is one of the few (if not only thing) that is almost always paid as a percentage of income.

This messes up how people see taxes and how the burden is distributed. And make people say things like Warren Buffent pays less taxes than I do.

You don't buy soldiers, schools, police officers and roads with percentage of incomes. You buy them with dollars, which is why I argue that we should measure the paid tax in dollars and realize that the rich already pay the largest share of it.

Since they don't actually use more government services (they properly use less, but that is another matter) I can't see the problem with reducing the amount paid by the highest income earners.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#288

Post by krschultz »

epscylonb wrote: post #263
seabee wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a flat percentage rate of tax with an exception for very low incomes That's not a flat tax, then, is it? It's progressive with two bands, 0% and x%. There is a real case for tax simplification, but the progressive nature of income tax is probably the simplest thing in the entire tax code ! It's the classification of different kinds of income and capital gains, exemptions and penalties for particular uses of money/a…

The reason I put fairer in quotes is because it is a term that can be argued over. Yes two bands, with the focus on making it attractive for people to earn money and pay tax, ideally the 0% band would be just enough to clothe, feed yourself and pay rent in a bad neighbourhood. Progressive is a word that seems to mean different things to the left and the right, I notice you didn't define it. As I said a flat tax is ec…

You clearly don't understand what the definition of 'progressive' tax is. It's 'progressive' in the sense that marginal tax rates increase as you make more money.

It is not 'progressive' as in 'progressive politics' or 'economic progress' or any other left or right politics.

Saying something is a 'pregressive tax' isn't a value judgement , it is just a description of the curve of the tax rate, i.e. the opposite of a regressive tax. As for 'discouraging people from trying to earn more money', that is a debate about rates but remember marginal tax rates never allow a situation where making a higher salary would leave you with less net income.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#289

Post by true_religion »

seabee wrote: post #286
epscylonb wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason I put fairer in quotes is because it is a term that can be argued over. Yes two bands, with the focus on making it attractive for people to earn money and pay tax, ideally the 0% band would be just enough to clothe, feed yourself and pay rent in a bad neighbourhood. Progressive is a word that seems to mean different things to the left and the right, I notice you didn't define it. As I said a flat tax is ec…

'Progressive' as used in the same context as your original post is basically a placeholder for 'benefiting the groups I care about'. It's not a meaningful word to use, and you even know that. Contrast with 'progressive tax', which is well-defined. I don't understand the line of thinking which effectively says "people don't want to earn £2 if they have to pay £1 in tax". Erm, you're still richer than you were if you d…

> if earning another £100k takes more amount of effort it took to earn your first £100k.

That's not the issue. The issue is that the 2nd 100k is worth less in terms of happiness than the first.

Various studies have shown that after around 80,000 peoples happiness is proportional to the amount of money they earn, and after that it levels out.

Thus if one didn't really care too much about that 2nd 100k, making it merely 50k might just be enough for the person to throw up their hands and say "its not worth it, I'll spend the weekends at home instead of at work".

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#290

Post by krschultz »

gaius wrote: post #280
ZachPruckowski wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Progressive is a word that seems to mean different things to the left and the right, I notice you didn't define it. "Progressive" has a very specific meaning when you're discussing tax structure, independent of its political meaning. Specifically, a progressive tax is one in which the effective rate you pay rises with income.

It's a word that has been at best deliberately overloaded, and at worst hijacked. Who would want to stand in the way of "progress"? It could equally well mean, the more you earn they more you get to keep.

No, it is a description of the tax code. It is not a judgement of the tax code. It is a 'progressive tax' or 'progressive tax rate'. It has nothing to do with 'progress' or the 'Progressive party'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

Post reply on HN