Buffett: Stop coddling the super-rich

The truth is that when you count what he loses BEFORE he ever takes his dividends -- what the government takes at the corporate level -- his effective tax rate is closer to 50 percent than 17 percent. He is disingenuous when he doesn't count that taxation or explain it in those op ed pieces.


eh, I don't buy that argument. The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same rights to free speech as individuals; could spend on elections as individuals.

 

Ragu --
On page 99 of the budget talks thread, you write, "the short of it is that in the United States, the wealthiest docile pays 45.1 percent of our taxes. That is effective tax receipts, not marginal tax rates." you go on to say that's a higher percentage than anywhere else. But you are relying solely on that portion listed under Federal Income Tax to make a highly misleading point because, as was pointed out by many others on that thread, FIT is hardly the whole of the tax picture. You ignored those replies. Now on this Buffett thread, he tells us what his Federal Income Tax was, and because it serves the purpose of your argument, you are arguing the other side of the coin and saying Federal Income Tax is not an adequate measure.

So why should anyone listen to a person who simultaneously argues that Federal Income Tax is proof that the rich pay more, and that Federal Income Tax is not proof that Warren Buffett pays less? If it is an accurate measure, it is accurate all the way around.

Also, I believe Buffett answered pretty well the questions about how his and his friends' taxes are reconciled, and that they are still lower because of carried interest, capital gains and such. I am especially glad that he took on the myth that people won't invest because their returns might be 4 percentage points lower, as well as the myth of job creation.

Whatever your problem is with the way Warren Buffett came by his numbers, you are doing the exact same massaging to come by yours, the only difference being that your efforts are in service of letting rich people keep even more of their money at the expense of the poor and middle class.

 

All of these rebuttals also presume that Berkshire Hathaway actually pays the corporate tax each year. Which would make it a very unusual American company. Most corporations don't bother, which renders that particular argument against raising the capital gains rate moot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812

 

If nothing else, Buffett is making a very good argument for simplifying the tax code.

 

Well, there is the fact that Berkshire has never paid a dividend. So I don't understand your references to Buffett paying himself dividend income.

 

We have no idea how Buffett's taxes are prepared.

 

If he wants to play such a public role in this "debate" and hold himself out as an example, he should probably release his tax returns.

 

A great big chunk of U.S. corporations (in the 60% to 70% range) are S corporations, whose profits are not subject to corporate income taxes. In those type firms, all profits flow directly to owners, where they are taxed at the prevailing individual rates. Lots of small businesses are set up this way -- a corporation with a handful of owners, each of whom gets a pro rata share of the company's net income. So long as the S-corporate form is a viable option (and it has been for a long time), the great bulk of U.S. corporations won't be paying corporate income taxes.

 

There are also tons of C-corps not paying taxes either.

 

Starbucks CEO tells other CEOs to stop donating to campaigns, and start creating jobs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-starbucks-chief-calls-on-ceos-to-stop-political-donations-create-jobs-20110815,0,7825357.story