Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

Geriatrix

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
6,554
Reaction score
3
Location
Right here
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And 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.

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.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
Interesting aside fact, Warren Buffets dad was a libertarian who hated Roosevelt with a passion. He was sort of like the 1940s version of Ron Paul.
 
It's funny how Buffet has no problem with congress and the Federal Reserve propping up and bailing out his interests in the finance industry and then shills for everyone else to be punished for this.

Once again, economist Murray Rothbard:

"It is clear that if a certain burden is unjust, blame should be levied, not on the man who escapes the burden, but on the man or men who impose it in the first place. If a tax is in fact unjust, and some are exempt from it, the hue and cry should not be to extend the tax to everyone, but on the contrary to extend the exemption to everyone. "
 
Very interesting article, and good to hear from the horse's mouth so to speak. Does anyone still think "trickle-down" economics still works? Looks to me like it was a complete failure, yet hardcore republicans still think it will benefit them somehow.

The irony is that the people most against tax cuts for the rich are in fact poor.
 
Does anyone still think "trickle-down" economics still works?

Oh, it works, if you're like Buffet and intimately connected with the government- then the money and favours are flooding down to you, even when swathes of your businesses were insolvent and should've been liquidated.
 
It's funny how Buffet has no problem with congress and the Federal Reserve propping up and bailing out his interests in the finance industry and then shills for everyone else to be punished for this.
Actually he asks for the rich to be punished more. But personally I agree with you, those bailouts where idiotic.
Buffets interest in the bailouts where not so much out of personal gain though, more in preventing collapse, which we can all agree would have been catastrophic. Think Yugoslavia in the 90s(although I think whats happening in the US now is just a slow mo version of that). Same why he arranged to save Salomons in the 80s.
Time will tell.

But, since we're on the subject, do you have a link to Buffets bailed out interests?

Once again, economist Murray Rothbard:

"It is clear that if a certain burden is unjust, blame should be levied, not on the man who escapes the burden, but on the man or men who impose it in the first place. If a tax is in fact unjust, and some are exempt from it, the hue and cry should not be to extend the tax to everyone, but on the contrary to extend the exemption to everyone. "
What does tax pay for?
 
Another interesting thing he said...

http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/9/warren-buffett-reveals-bailout-s-dirty-little-secret
...

Warren Buffett, meanwhile, thinks the appropriate price would be the "market value," which he believes is below the price at which the banks are currently carrying their trash:

(If) they do (the bailout) right, I think they'll make a lot of money.... They shouldn't buy these debt instruments at what the institutions paid. They shouldn't buy them at what they're carrying, what the carrying value is, necessarily. They should buy them at the kind of prices that are available in the market. People who are buying these instruments in the market are expecting to make 15 to 20 percent on those instruments. If the government makes anything over its cost of borrowing, this deal will come out with a profit. And I would bet it will come out with a profit, actually...

You can be pretty fanciful in marking positions in Wall Street, particularly when things aren't trading. The one thing you want to make sure, when the Treasury is buying things, is the marks they have don't make any difference. Like I said, it wouldn't be a bad idea, if you're buying ten billion of a security and you're the Treasury, to have them sell five-hundred million, or something like that into the market, so you find out what the real market price is and then buy the other 9-1/2 billion at that price. I really think, I really think the Treasury will make -- I think they'll pay back the 700 billion and make a considerable amount of money, if they approach it in that manner.

Read that again. Warren Buffett is not talking about paying any theoretical "hold-to-maturity" price. He's not even talking about the "don't-give-your-shareholders-all-the-bad-news-yet" carrying price (the "fanciful" ones he describes above). He's talking about the market price.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/2008...s-bailout-s-dirty-little-secret#ixzz1V56WGnEo
...
 
But, since we're on the subject, do you have a link to Buffets bailed out interests?

Off the top of my head there's Moody's, part of the triumvirate cartel of ratings agencies directly responsible for the financial bubble. He also bought into Goldman Sachs right before their bailouts were announced, as well as the bailout of AIG which allowed Goldman to get their CDSs paid out. Berkshire Hathaway has its tentacles all over the beneficiaries of government largesse.

Read that again. Warren Buffett is not talking about paying any theoretical "hold-to-maturity" price. He's not even talking about the "don't-give-your-shareholders-all-the-bad-news-yet" carrying price (the "fanciful" ones he describes above). He's talking about the market price.

Yeah, and guess what happens when there's monopsony: All the holders of these securities will collude to make sure Treasury gets ripped-off. Not that Treasury ever had to worry about the price of the securities in the first place, not when the Fed is ready to monetize trillions at the drop of a hat. Buffet’s right, it should be left to market prices to liquidate these assets, but that’s impossible without leaving it to market buyers who don’t have access to endless cash like Treasury. Why not leave it to market buyers then? Oh, that’s right; it would’ve meant insolvency for almost all of the big financial firms on Wall Street.
 
Off the top of my head there's Moody's, part of the triumvirate cartel of ratings agencies directly responsible for the financial bubble. He also bought into Goldman Sachs right before their bailouts were announced, as well as the bailout of AIG which allowed Goldman to get their CDSs paid out. Berkshire Hathaway has its tentacles all over the beneficiaries of government largesse.

Yeah, and guess what happens when there's monopsony: All the holders of these securities will collude to make sure Treasury gets ripped-off. Not that Treasury ever had to worry about the price of the securities in the first place, not when the Fed is ready to monetize trillions at the drop of a hat. Buffet’s right, it should be left to market prices to liquidate these assets, but that’s impossible without leaving it to market buyers who don’t have access to endless cash like Treasury. Why not leave it to market buyers then? Oh, that’s right; it would’ve meant insolvency for almost all of the big financial firms on Wall Street.

The same Moodys that downgraded Berkshire? The same Moodys that Buffet publicly called out and he said that their US downgrade was stupid and that he rates the US AAAA? He doesn't seem to have much say in how they run things then.

Also, consider what would have happened to the world, nevermind the US had almost all the big financial firms on Wall Street collapsed. I just wish they prosecuted and imprisoned those responsible instead of giving them performance bonuses.
 
The same Moodys that downgraded Berkshire? The same Moodys that Buffet publicly called out and he said that their US downgrade was stupid and that he rates the US AAAA? He doesn't seem to have much say in how they run things then.

Irrespective, Buffet has a stake in a company whose position is only lucrative because of its state-sanctioned cartel position.

Also, consider what would have happened to the world, nevermind the US had almost all the big financial firms on Wall Street collapsed.

Please elaborate on what would've happened to the world? Bear Stearns, Lehmann Brothers, AIG could all went down the memory hole. I constantly hear this Wall Street propaganda that everything would be doomed if they had to be liquidated, and yet in place of this what do we have now? Insatiable government deficits, unsustainable soveriegn debt, the risk of sovereign default, regime uncertainty, record low interest rates, inflation all over the place, real unemployment rates approaching Great Depression levels, incredible market volatility and on and on. And for what? So Goldman could get paid out on its CDSs? C'mon.
 
Last edited:
Please elaborate on what would've happened to the world? Bear Stearns, Lehmann Brothers, AIG could all went down the memory hole. I constantly hear this Wall Street propaganda that everything would be doomed if they had to be liquidated, and yet in place of this what do we have now? Insatiable government deficits, unsustainable soveriegn debt, the risk of sovereign default, regime uncertainty, record low interest rates, inflation all over the place, real unemployment rates approaching Great Depression levels, incredible market volatility and on and on. And for what? So Goldman could get paid out on its CDSs? C'mon.
What would have happened? Trillions of dollars more would have disappeared of the economy. Dollar would have lost its reserve status(inevitable I know but it happening this quick with no preparation would have been catastrophic). Millions would lose not only their homes but their jobs, savings and their retirements. Western Europe would have collapsed. China would have stuttered and collapsed. Hell, no one is sure what would have happened but most agree that it would have made the Depression look like a cupcake sale.
 
Trillions of dollars more would have disappeared of the economy.

The point of a recession is to liquidate the bad investments and for prices to correct. Those dollars don't really disappear, rather the prices for things would come down. This doesn't mean the economy won't ever grow again, what it means is the falling prices create opportunities for those who weren't reckless in the boom times.

Dollar would have lost its reserve status(inevitable I know but it happening this quick with no preparation would have been catastrophic)

Not necessarily. Creating trillions more dollars and the implicit and explicit guarantees of the Federal government are a sure-fire path to its demise, though.

Millions would lose not only their homes but their jobs, savings and their retirements.

Millions have lost their jobs, real unemployment is approaching Great Depression levels. People should've lost their homes, housing was a giant bubble, a malinvestment, that would've been corrected with defaults and falling prices, making houses greatly more affordable without requiring unsustainable levels of debt, but instead the government tried as hard as it could to prop those prices up and keep credit cheap; hardly solutions. People are losing their savings and retirement right now too, by the value-bleeding of inflation and by the Ponzi nature of Social Security.

The bailouts, QEs and government stimulus programs were not inconsequential. They are a massive redistribution of wealth from all holders of dollars and dollar-denominated assets into the hands of the anointed beneficiaries of government largesse.

but most agree that it would have made the Depression look like a cupcake sale.

You ain't seen nothing yet. In the U.S. recession of 1920-21 the government drastically cut spending, lowered tax rates across the board, paid down their debt and didn't intervene or interfere with liquidations. The recession was sharp, but brief, and the market reorganized. Contrast this to Hoover and Roosevelt's response from 1929 onward and their collective policies created the Great Depression and prolonged the economic woes for nearly two decades. This time it'll be much worse. At least in the Great Depression America still had affordable labour and a large manufacturing base, as well as the benefits of deflation to those who sought to save. Today, the fundamentals are far worse.
 
Last edited:
So what's stopping the rich like Buffet from giving their money to the government?

These super rich who proclaim to want to be taxed more why don't they sell their 10 bedroom holiday mansions and million dollar super cars and use that money to help the poor who's plight they proclaim to care so deeply for.

It's all a charade. Plenty of loopholes and tax havens for them to avoid actually paying in the tax if it is raised but making the claim endears them to the proletariat.
 
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Oh I know, ****s going down. But at least this way its slow motion. :D

So what's stopping the rich like Buffet from giving their money to the government?

These super rich who proclaim to want to be taxed more why don't they sell their 10 bedroom holiday mansions and million dollar super cars and use that money to help the poor who's plight they proclaim to care so deeply for.

It's all a charade. Plenty of loopholes and tax havens for them to avoid actually paying in the tax if it is raised but making the claim endears them to the proletariat.
You don't know much about Buffet do you?
 
Cant we blame George Soros yet? You know, his like the super big evil guy. Has lots of money, says nice things about people, grows democracies, helped Hungary become a democracy, he believes in welfare. He just has to be the big evil here. We gotta blame the guy doing the most good. Im sure thats how it works around here.
 
Cant we blame George Soros yet? You know, his like the super big evil guy. Has lots of money, says nice things about people, grows democracies, helped Hungary become a democracy, he believes in welfare. He just has to be the big evil here. We gotta blame the guy doing the most good. Im sure thats how it works around here.

Well, it's just hard to take the economic opinions of a man seriously when he says that F.A. Hayek was a member of the Chicago School of economics and associates his approach with the efficient markets hypothesis. Ridiculous.
 
Here the world-wrecking colelctivists go again. There are so many false and fatuous assumptions in this story it beggars belief. As if the money belongs to the people or society or someone others than its owners.
This whole mess is caused by countless state interventions in the market that make possible the insanity that now reigns supreme.
Why not take a look at this video to see how deep the problem is, and how we got here. It's 5 years old but more relevant than ever.
 
Cant we blame George Soros yet? You know, his like the super big evil guy. Has lots of money, says nice things about people, grows democracies, helped Hungary become a democracy, he believes in welfare. He just has to be the big evil here. We gotta blame the guy doing the most good. Im sure thats how it works around here.

lol comrade ghoti fan of of the hedge fund managing white collar criminal because he throws some pocket change his way....
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X