The newest member of the ‘budget tenthers’: Warren Buffett

OMG, OMG, OMG!!1!111!!!! Warren Buffett wants to raise taxes on the rich! The republic has been saved!!!1!

Not quite.

Suffice it to say, Buffett gets a lot more left-wing, touchy-feely mileage from his op-ed in Monday’s New York Times than the federal government would get in the way of cold, hard cash by taxing him and his “mega-rich friends” more heavily.

From Buffett’s op-ed:

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

At first glance, Buffett seems to have made the case for “millionaires and billionaires” not paying their “fair share.” But let’s look a bit further:

  • In 1992, using Buffett’s figures, the top 400 would have paid $4.9 billion in taxes. That’s a little less than half a percentage point of all federal revenues at the time (which includes more than just personal income taxes).
  • In 2008, the top 400 would have paid $19.5 billion in taxes. That’s about three-quarters of a percentage point of all federal revenues.

So, the top 400 in 2008 paid more in taxes than they earned in 1992. And their share of all tax revenues rose by one-half. But that’s not the way Buffett wants us to look at things. How much more would the “mega-rich” have paid on their 2008 earnings at 1992 effective rates?

Well, if the top 400 in 2008 had paid taxes at the same rate they did in 1992, 29.2 percent, the U.S. Treasury’s take would have increased by…

…drum roll, please…

…a whopping…

…staggering…

…soaring…

…$7 billion.

Which represents about four-tenths of a percentage point of this year’s $1.5 trillion deficit.

As I wrote once before: A tenth here, a tenth there — pretty soon, you’re talking about a whole percentage point! In fact, add it to President Obama’s hated tax break for corporate jet owners and you’re almost at 1 percent of the problem.

Now, Buffett also wrote that he supports creating two new tax brackets, at $1 million and $10 million. He didn’t suggest any rates for these brackets, so we can’t analyze what his proposal would mean in terms of revenue.

But we can apply the effective rates in 2000, the last full year of the Clinton-era rates, to the income reported in Buffett’s $1 million and $10 million brackets in 2009. There were 236,883 filers in those brackets that year, the top 1.7 percent of all filers.

Do that, and 2009 revenue would have increased by…

…wait for it…

…$14.4 billion.

That’s just under 1 percent of this year’s $1.5 trillion deficit. And naturally it includes any increases on the top 400, as discussed above.

F0lks, the problem with the federal budget deficit is not taxes on Buffett and his “mega-rich friends,” or even taxes on all “millionaires and billionaires.” I don’t say that because I hate the poor, worship the mega-rich, or am named in the will of a millionaire grandma or billionaire uncle somewhere.

I say it because as long as we’re not talking about the real problem — out-of-control spending — we are not talking about real solutions.

P.S. — Dan Mitchell and Timothy Carney offer other rebuttals of Buffett.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

202 comments Add your comment

ByteMe

August 16th, 2011
5:26 am

F0lks, the problem with the federal budget deficit is not taxes on Buffett and his “mega-rich friends,” or even taxes on all “millionaires and billionaires.”

Nope, but one of the big problems with our current society is that we’ve seceeded way too much power (via money, which some people strangely equate to “speech”) to “millionaires and billionaires” and need to start taking that back. A society with a large divide between the upper classes and the lower classes will eventually have a revolution based on populism, because the lower classes will (rightly) feel that that’s the only way they will ever be properly represented.

It’s not about the budget. It’s about preventing the formation of a permanent “landed gentry” who rule the plantation where the rest of us work… if we can find work.

[...] been saved!!!1! more… [...]

Joel Edge

August 16th, 2011
6:02 am

If he feels he has to much money, I can help him out.

Road Scholar

August 16th, 2011
6:14 am

What does the % of all taxes have to do with it? Aren’t we looking at effective tax rates? What would have been collected w/o deductions? The original premise where there rate, with deductions, went from 29.2 to 21.5 is the most telling!

Besides a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you have billions to put towards our debt. I know the debt is trillions, but you have to start somewhere. Right?

Kyle, for a family of 4 making 20-30 thousand, how do they pay more taxes and not go bankrupt? Or have to work more jobs?

Go Figure

August 16th, 2011
6:23 am

I’m sick and tired of your all or nothing approach to this: if increased taxes on the wealthy in and of itself won’t solve the problem…..then it’s not a solution. Bullcrap! When I budget for myself, I cut out the things that are unnecessary AND I do everything in my power to increase my earnings. Every little bit counts.

Shame on you for perpetuating the “coddle the rich” sanctimonious bullcrap. They’re not job creators. They’re money hoarders…and they admit it.

Skip

August 16th, 2011
6:29 am

Why listen to Buffett, what could he possibly know that Kyle doesn’t about money.

jconservative

August 16th, 2011
6:37 am

Per the Bureau of the Public Debt the debt held by the public is $9,921,178,729,715.63 as of 8/12/2011.

From the same website:

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

•You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
•You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it’s a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

I would guess that this is the only way the debt will ever be paid. Congress seems intellectually incapable to paying the debt, or even stopping its growth, so we are down to individual contributions.

Marc

August 16th, 2011
6:38 am

Go Figure – please tell me the last time you got a job from a poor person.

Andrew

August 16th, 2011
6:45 am

Yes, spending is the main issue. But we do need shared sacrifice, and it should start at the top. How can you increase the Social Security retirement age or Medicare eligibility age for a middle class lifetime worker and continue to have the super high earners pay a substantially lower effective rate than they did 25 years ago? Why is this unfairness not obvious to Republican legislators? Why are they so protective of the $5,000,000 plus earners?

marko

August 16th, 2011
6:46 am

Tax cuts for the wealthy were supposed to lead to job growth. They did not Wealth we’re told, trickles down. It doesn’t. The wealthy remain the only group in America that’s better off today than they were twenty years ago. Wall street bankers destroyed the economy not the school teachers and union members you’re asking to pick up the tab.
Kyle’s right when he suggest that we can’t tax ourselves out of our current dilemma, but we can’t cut ourselves out either. The math doesn’t work that way either. At the end of the day sound economic policy would have led to an expanding, growing middle class. Since this hasn’t occurred, our policies are clearly wrong. Saint Reagan once said,” trust but Verify”. We trusted our wealthy benefactors to create jobs, but we forgot to verify that they were actually doing it. The private sector creates profits. if it is more profitable to create jobs overseas they will create jobs overseas. For all their phony baloney talk of of patriotism, It’s money first country second with these guys. the solution really is as simple as tying the tax tax cuts to job creation here at home.

DeborahinAthens

August 16th, 2011
6:51 am

Every little bit helps–in cuts and revenue. Gotta love the Repugs rebuttal to any Democratic proposal. “It’s too small, won’t work…etc. , etc. etc…..”. Never mind that the Tea Party nixed President Obama’s 4. 5 trillion offer of cuts because they would’t accept any sort of revenue increase. Instead they accept the crap that the Gang of Twelve will “work out” that will give them, at best, 1.5 trillion in cuts. Then you really expect us to believe your interest is only in getting the deficit under control??? Your only interest is keeping the economy in the toilet so Obama won’t be re-elected. Rick Perry has the audacity to swagger around the stage deriding this Administration’s handling of the economic melt down. He gladly took 72 billion of federal dollars from the Stimulus Bill. Without it, he could not have balanced Texas’ 2009 budget, and the 2007 budget, retroactively.

HadIt

August 16th, 2011
7:00 am

Yea, those additional taxes, had they been paid, would not have amounted to all that much. Yet….drum roll please… the Republicans were more than happy to destroy this country with its debt ceiling blackmail to preserve these measely tax savings for the super rich.

Viet Vet

August 16th, 2011
7:01 am

Marc, Go into any rundown store in any impoverished neighborhood and you will find someone working and making a living serving the poor people who shop there. Jobs are not gifts bestowed on the common folk by
rich people, they are a response to demand for some kind of economic benefit. In consumer economies like ours the biggest source of demand comes from the poor and the lower and middle classes, who spend almost all of their income, which then recirculates through the economy. The extremely wealthy create less recirculating demand because they save more and indulge in luxuries, such as fine art, foreign travel and jewelry, that create less demand. Military spending is also a poor job creator, since much of it is spent overseas or on things that don’t increase the productive capacity of an economy.

JDW

August 16th, 2011
7:04 am

” say it because as long as we’re not talking about the real problem — out-of-control spending — we are not talking about real solutions.”

And I don’t suppose revenues shrinking from around 20% of GDP in the 1997-2000 timeframe to less than 15% today have anything to do with the problem? :roll:

BTW 5% of GDP equals about

…drum roll, please…

…a whopping…

…staggering…

…soaring…

…$735 Billion dollars or about 50% of the problem…

Ayn Rant

August 16th, 2011
7:06 am

Kyle, we’ll take the several billion from the top 400, and many billions more from the rest of the top 250,000 income receivers by closing tax loopholes and raising the marginal tax rate. The tax loopholes involve gimmicks like “carried interest” and favorable tax treatment of income from speculative financial instruments like gold, hedge funds, and derivatives.

The justification for high tax rates for the rich is two-fold: to raise billions of dollars to maintain our infrastructure and bring down the federal deficit, and to encourage the rich to discharge their responsibilities to the society that affords them their privileges. The rich are defined as those persons who have income beyond their needs to support a luxurious lifestyle. Their patriotic responsibilities are: to invest their unneeded income in American enterprise, and to fund worthwhile cultural, educational, and humanitarian projects; in other words, to create jobs that Americans need to support themselves and their families.

Presently, there is an excess of capital and a dearth of consumer demand in the world. Trillions of dollars are parked in financial instruments awaiting investment opportunities. China alone is sitting on a $3 trillion dollar sovereign fund. Money is meant to circulate, not to pool at the top and be taken out of play. A proper tax code can break the financial logjam by converting some of the excess capital to consumer spending so that consumer demand grows enough to spark capital investment in America.

Bill

August 16th, 2011
7:10 am

Kyle – you are good!! As usual, you miss the point of this discussion. Revenue AND Cuts are the only way we will address our problem (go back and look at Bowles / Simpson again). I am not sure why you focus on this part of the problem only – and defend it so rigorously. I can only imagine that it must be partisianship and ignorance. Neither really make a good journalist!!

Regards,

Bob

August 16th, 2011
7:11 am

Deb in athens, every little bit does help. spending 800billion on a failed stimulus did not. The fact is that you can confiscate the entire incomes of the top 400 earners and it would help little other than letting the likes of Obama. His followers would still be in the crapper but they would have nailed those mean rich people.

Ronnie Raygun

August 16th, 2011
7:12 am

Since cutting funding for NPR or Planned Parenthood won’t solve the entire debt issue by them selves either, why do Cons keep bringing them to the table? Cutting all foreign aid won’t make a dent in the debt either, so I guess it should be off the table too.

Kyle, you sound like one of those high paid government bigwigs like UGA president Mike Adams who like to wail that cutting government salaries over $100,000 (like his) by 10% won’t “solve” Georgia’s budget crunch. I respond to you like I would to him, “But it’s a great start.”

Will

August 16th, 2011
7:22 am

Republican newspaper writers and radio/tv entertainers are a hoot!

Ole Warren makes them see red everything he talks about raising taxes on the rich because they are obsessed with protecting the rich from tax increases.

Why? Because they think that, if the rich aren’t taxed, the rich will take their profits and create more jobs and that will be a good thing. Oh sure, that’s what the rich today, not consume but create jobs!!

Republican politicians say the same thing but what they really mean is they need to protect the rich because the rich vote for them and contribute to their campaigns.

Republican newspaper writers must be correct because after the Bush tax cuts, he certainly rode off into the sunset secure in the knowledge that the republican administration and republican Congress had left our economy in such a wonderful state!

Politics is not complicated. If you want to protect the rich, vote republican.

Go Figure

August 16th, 2011
7:23 am

Marc

I’m self-employed; in fact, I’m one of those middle-class, over-taxed JOB CREATORS.

Your attempt at sarcasm only shows the flimsiness of your beliefs.

Jimmy62

August 16th, 2011
7:28 am

I always find it ironic that people say middle class Republicans are stupid for voting against their economic interests, yet you won’t find those same people saying Buffett is stupid for being against his economic interest. Probably because it’s not. Fact is, the dude could restructure his company so he pays a lot more, but he doesn’t. His stock doesn’t even pay dividends, so all the rich people that own it (I don’t know any non-rich that can afford a single share) don’t have to pay taxes on those dividends. He could write a bigger check to the IRS. There are a lot of things he could do, but instead he writes a deceptive column convincing liberals who have an unsound understanding of economics and tax law (not that I am an expert) that he’s such a good guy.

You know this wonderful guy Buffett made a killing off Goldman Sachs, buying them up right before the government bailed them out. Probably got clued in by his government friends. Hell, they might have even asked him advice on the whole thing, which he manipulated to make a cool billion. And he LOVES the estate tax, which allows him to buy up small companies when their owners die and the owner’s kids can’t afford to pay the tax. And his insurance companies derive a significant amount of their money from the estate tax.

Buffett’s column is a cynical manipulation, not an honest and heartfelt call for governance.

JDW

August 16th, 2011
7:31 am

@ Go Figure…folks like Marc have a lot of trouble with facts. Here is one they never like to hear…

To those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.”…Warren Buffett

I wonder why Kyle left that part of Mr Buffett’s article out?

GT

August 16th, 2011
7:35 am

More and more money is made by the rich and less and less by the rest of us. A billion goes on that side of the ledger this year and it stays on that side of the ledger untaxed. Times goes by and the amount of this money builds up like a calcium deposit. There was a time a couple of years ago people were getting nervous about so much money sitting in endowment funds like Harvard or Yale, probably still are it just hasn’t been written about. And there was our man T. Boone Pickens who gave some astronomical amount of money to Oklahoma State’s athletic board, then became the fund manager of the money. He could take his untaxed money and invest in his personal projects bring the money back out tax free plus huge profits and reinvests tax free. First of all I don’t think Americans want college football to be a tax write off for the wealthy and second I don’t think T. had sincerity in forming his own tax free bank for his own use. Old T. and many Republicans have developed this smirk. They know they are getting away with something. They don’t need the money so why does it give the pleasure to get away with not paying taxes? There is a fine line between white collar criminals and guys like this. There is a good augment that a huge amount of Wall Street is just a Ponzi game that collapsed in 2008. We need to get this country back to being economically supported by the middle class that is productive and out of the hands of the smirking rich that are not productive.

These are the games not mentioned in the simple explanation by Kyle. This is the problem with Republican explanations they barely cover the surface of the complication of the problem. When the Tallmadges and the Thurmans ran this “grassroots” operation they kind of kept their ambitions simple, we just want to be bigots, have our state rights, beat their wives, cheat on their wives, drink a lot of liquor and die fat. They didn’t even try to fake the church stuff, or anything, they lived like pigs at the pleasure of their simple minded following.

Phil's Tel-A-Gramm

August 16th, 2011
7:47 am

Kyle is all bent out of shape this morning because his mantra of “lower taxes on the wealthy in order to create more jobs,” has been blown by a billionaire. Now he scurries around with his like-minded brethren trying to discredit a billionaire that opposes the preposterous claim that the wealthiest need more bigger tax cuts with lame diversionary tactics. You are the loser here, Kyle, not Warren Buffett. :lol:

GT

August 16th, 2011
7:48 am

Did anybody see the interview on Piers Morgan last night with Mark Sanford?

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

August 16th, 2011
7:48 am

Go Figure: I’m sick and tired of your all or nothing approach to this: if increased taxes on the wealthy in and of itself won’t solve the problem…..then it’s not a solution. Bullcrap!
——-

You remind me of the libtards who won’t allow “drill here, drill now” ostensibly because it won’t solve the problem all by itself.

Phil's Tel-A-Gramm

August 16th, 2011
7:50 am

By the way, Kyle, what’s your definition of Buffett’s fair share. :lol:

Joe the Plutocrat

August 16th, 2011
7:50 am

I am truly saddened by America’s continued reliance on sound bite politics and talking points discourse, as it would appear those barking the loudest are deficient in reading comprehension. Where in Buffett’s editorial did he suggest or argue that increasing the taxes on billionaires would be the silver bullet solution to the debt problem? it’s a good think Buffett isn’t running for President, lest he be accused of being a Socialist (and let’s see his birth certificate). well, I read the screed and you know what I come away with? SHARED SACRIFICE. and by “shared” I believe Buffett means eliminate loopholes and taxe EVERYONE’S income at the same rate. that is to say; if one’s “labor” is managing a hedge fund or trading stocks; tax it at the same rate as a sanitation worker, mlb all-star, college professor, or busboy. Buffet is a smart man, but he is not a politician, ergo; he is not responsible for out-of-control deficit spending, which is why, I suspect, he did not make this the focus of his editorial. again, it is doubtful we will ever fix this mess, but properly managed debt is better than improperly managed debt.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

August 16th, 2011
7:51 am

As long as spending (25% of GDP thanks to Obozo) is above the maximum we can get in taxes (20%, regardless of tax rates), then the problem is spending.

No tax increases until spending is back to pre-Obozo levels.

The Great and Powerful Community Organizer

August 16th, 2011
7:52 am

I DECREE…All money belongs to the Great and Powerful US Government. The people are subjects of the Great and Powerful US Government. The Government will decide how much of your–er—OUR Government money you may keep. The Government is NOT subject of the people. Government KNOWS better than the individual on what to do with their–er –uh people’s– I mean, The Government’s money. THe Government is a model in efficiency. Just look at AMTRAK..No..look at The Postal Service…I mean…well. You people just need to shut up and give your money to the US Government. It is because of Government that the UNited States is great.

Joe the Plutocrat

August 16th, 2011
7:52 am

li’l barry, you’re gonna have to retire that ‘tax ythe wealthy card’. did you read the screed? he said,. “tax the wealthy AT THE SAME RATE YOU TAX THE NOT-WEALTHY”. geez!

Buzz G

August 16th, 2011
7:53 am

Warren Buffet is the ultimate hypocrite. He has placed much of his money in a trust in order to avoid taxes and then yells that he is not paying enough taxes. He has been elevated by the liberal press as a man of high ethics. But he would rip off American tax payers in a moment if he had the chance. He stays close to the people in power in Washington in order to curry favor. And he wrote this article to do just that.

Moocher

August 16th, 2011
7:54 am

YEAH! Make those rich folks pay “their fair share”…I like bein part of the 47% that pay ZERO in Federal Income Tax! Gubmint is good to me!

dinkdunk

August 16th, 2011
7:55 am

Buffet has gone soft in the head. Rather than arguing for a reduction in corporate tax that would make us more competitive as a nation in world markets (and be good for Berkshire shareholders) he publishes this drivel. I like Buchanan’s challenge to Buffet. Just send $5 bil of yours in, thanks you very much. I’ll be selling my B shares today.

Joe the Plutocrat

August 16th, 2011
7:57 am

Viet Vet @7:01, THANK YOU! I’ve been saying this for years. And I have also been saying that all this “entitlement” money (social security, food stamps, section 8 stipends, etc.) ALSO ends up flowing through the poor, visa consumer activity, with a portion being ’skimmed’ off and hoarded by the wealthy (a portion of which, is used, via lobbyists to continue these villified programs AND ensure favorable tax codes for the wealthy). does anyone think the Bush tax cuts were HIS idea?

The Great and Powerful Community Organizer

August 16th, 2011
8:01 am

Woooo-boy! I jus’ love playing that “wealth envy” card. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to Martha’s Vineyard! I’ve got some good friends flyin in on their Corporate Jets.

GT

August 16th, 2011
8:05 am

Joe the Plutocrat nail it.

Religious belief says it all comes as a gift from God. Buffet may come closer to living that than many on the right that carry it on their sleeve. Also Gates a good friend of Buffet believes the same about taxing the rich. This is what you call moral leadership. This country is in disperate need of this kind of character. I didn’t know till last night that Mark Sanford was one of the founders of the Tea Party.

Joe the Plutocrat

August 16th, 2011
8:10 am

any of you Buffet bashers ever been in court? see if you can follow me here; as I may use some big words and my missive may require you to think conceptually AND critically. in (criminal) court there is something called ‘the burden of proof’. this means that the prosecution cannot make baseless claims or allegations against a defendant. the accuser must PROVE their case – usually via testimony and evidence, as opposed to the defense “proving” innocence. this is also addressed in the 5th Amendment. ergo, contary to Pat Buchanan’s (and others)un-American challenge, Buffet is NOT required by law to pay anything beyond the 17% he pays. THIS IS THE POINT OF HIS EDITORIAL!!!! the tax laws need to be re-written, and the loopholes need to be closed. Warren Buffet is a man of business. he does not dispute that he has benefited financially from the inequities and loopholes of the current tax code. again, “spending” is another conversation. li’l barry, lo siento, amigo, I think I misread one of your posts (you did not refer to the ‘libs want to tax the rich’)

Truth

August 16th, 2011
8:11 am

The issue is not taxation but confidence the most effiecient place to send the money is the Federal government. There is too much waste in my opinion to voluntarily vote to raise my taxes and feel good about it.

Prove to the American public you can manage the current revenues flowing into the Federal government.

Really?

August 16th, 2011
8:12 am

To All
Do you really think what Kyle has written today (and the past) is good journalism? Responses like most today are more well thought out than his ‘blog’. Responding to his cherry picking of the Buffet op ed and his slanted logic just keeps him employed. If he writes his little blogs and no one responds, the AJC will make him (and the others) go away. Each response is tallied and used to justify their jobs. So this is my last response to any ‘blog’ disguised as journalism. Let them rot on the vine and get real jobs or do real journalism and not sound bite crap.

Phil's Tel-A-Gramm

August 16th, 2011
8:13 am

Kyle, when will you share with us your rationalization regarding those 25 hedge fund managers and their 15% tax rate through the use of the carried interest loophole on the 25 billion that they “earned” in one year. I can’t wait. Will it be one of the common diversions such as “Tim Geithner’s a tax cheat” or something less childish. The suspense! It’s like I’m sitting in a theater watching a B-movie waiting for the next shoe to drop.

Truth

August 16th, 2011
8:15 am

Warren Buffett also does not pay a large portion of his taxes as “Income Tax” due to dividends, etc. I would look at the “Loopholes” before raising the rates.

Mr. Obama paid an “Effective” rate of 27% on over $1.2 million in income. A corporate executive paid an “Effective” rate of 35% on $425,000 of income. The difference is the “Loopholes”.

Phil's Tel-A-Gramm

August 16th, 2011
8:15 am

Really? at 8:12, unlike Kyle, some of us prefer to try to help people keep a job.

Sobelle

August 16th, 2011
8:16 am

You know, Americans have been arguing about what’s right and what’s wrong in the government since the beginning. And it won’t stop with this administration and groups of reps and sens. It will go on and on. I just wish people would take a look back and see how we came together as a country during WWII. The men went off to war to defend our country and the women (who didn’t go as well) stayed back and ran the factories that made the necessary equipment for the men. The children bought stamps at 10cents and pasted them in booklets until they reached a certain amount and then turned them in for a bond to support the war effort. This country came together. We didn’t get bacon, butter, sliced bread, heating oil, gasoline for our cars, etc., etc., without ration stamps that were doled out by the government. But no one complained. It was all done with patriotism for our great country. Where has that spirit gone? After the war, we came roaring back. Maybe we came back with too much and our children had a lot and lost respect as well as patriotism. Let’s look back and reread the pages in the book before getting to the end.

The Great and Powerful Community Organizer

August 16th, 2011
8:16 am

Hey Joe…I mean Judge Joe…What is “un-American” about Buchanan’s challenge?

Kylethinkswe'restupid

August 16th, 2011
8:17 am

Wow little Kyle, even your less than intelligent readers are calling you out on this attempt to confuse them with irrelevant facts.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

August 16th, 2011
8:18 am

The rich are paying their “fair share” plus most of yours. Quit whining, you greedy hypocrites.

Joe the Plutocrat

August 16th, 2011
8:19 am

Truth, are you serious? the WHOLE POINT of Buffett’s editorial was to close the loopholes. the blowback from the right/tea party is, “closing loopholes is liberal codespeak for tax increase”. in other words, if INCOME is taxed at 15% percent because it is recorded as “carried interest” as opposed to W-2 or 1999 INCOME; THIS IS A LOOPHOLE. to close it would mean an increase in taxes in the eyes of the tea party/right. you and Buffet are closer than you think, you just articulate your positions differently.

Joe the Plutocrat

August 16th, 2011
8:21 am

li’l barry, they’re not. not even close. there are only two ways this is “fair” tax everyone at 15% (capital gains rate) or tax everyone at 35% (or whatever the W-2/1099 rate is these days). do you really need us to grab a dictionary to post the definition of “fair share”?

sam

August 16th, 2011
8:21 am

c’mon kyle, we’re not trying to erase the debt this year. its like you boosted this ‘column’ from a goofy blogger. it was posted pretty early, maybe you were still groggy?