• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Warren Buffett releases tax figures to GOP

If that is your claim, provide your proof, because you have not shown that Buffett is a hypocrite.
I already have and so have you... he says one thing, and has CPA and lawyers employed to use the loopholes to garner him a lower tax responsibility than his secretary. See that's what hypocrite means --- say one thing, do another.


Also, please explain why Buffett petitioned to have his taxes increased, if he wished to avoid paying taxes?
Because he knows petitioning doesn't mean squat. :lol:

Is that it?
 
He doesn't need to. It's common knowledge that capital gains are taxed at much lower rates than personal income tax. He also makes most of his money through capital gains, hence the lower tax rate. He's not gaming the system, the system was tailor made for him.
Therefore being paid via capital gains is already a tax dodge methodology. That's a good point... however, there is no way in hell that Buffett doesn't have multiple CPA's and Lawyers watching the 2nd richest man in the worlds money.

What's not mentioned is how Mr. Buffett and his CPA's and Lawyers sheltered his money from the existing tax code:

WSJ said:
For billionaires like Mr. Buffett, the single most important deduction in the tax code is for charitable giving. Middle-class earners can't give nearly as much money away to reduce their overall tax burden. Yet we don't hear Mr. Buffett calling for the elimination of that deduction in the name of fairness. Mr. Buffett has also already sheltered the bulk of his fortune from federal taxes by putting them into a foundation that will give the money away. That's an act of generosity, but if the government's purposes are so vital, why doesn't he simply give the money to the IRS?

Rebecca Quick of CNBC put that question to Mr. Buffett in 2007. His answer: "Well, that's a choice and it's an option . . . If I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multibillionaire, or give it to the government, I'd absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government."

Foundations also have CPA's and Lawyers assigned to them. :shrug:

Another note is that Buffett and Berkshire has an on going law suit against the IRS for past taxes due. The IRS claims that Berkshire has been short changing the IRS through 2000-2010. Some of the claims have been settled and others such as 2005-2008 are still being negotiated. This is where the claim of $1 billion in back taxes from Berkshire comes from.


No, you don't pay less based on how many lawyers you hire. He pays less cause most of his money comes from capital gains and not personal income from his job. If you went out and made the same amount of money as him through personal gains and investing you'd pay very close to the same tax rate. He's not gaming he system. If you think that him making money through capital gains is gaming the system then I would think you agree with me that we should tax capital gains income as personal income...
He games and has gamed the system. He's used the tax protection loopholes effectively such that he pays an incredibly low rate for someone with as much money as he has. I don't blame him for doing that, but I do blame him for being a hypocrite and using all those tax loopholes while saying "Raise my taxes". It's a joke... his money is protected using every method, loophole and function the tax code can provide. You and I both know that if Billionaires get taxed at 90% tomorrow and it passes, Buffett's income, investments, etc... are bullet proof unless of course, the entire tax code is scrapped and protections lifted. Then he with all the other billionaires would have to fork over whatever the government identified. If that happened, my opinion is, he would sue the government and anyone else to protect his money. He would NOT give it gladly to the government.
 
Therefore being paid via capital gains is already a tax dodge methodology.

Not really. You can't get "paid via capital gains" in terms of compensation for your labor...capital gains is what happens when you sell a stock for more than what you paid for it. Of course Buffett probably earns a lot more from his investments than he does from his compensation at Berkshire, but that's not exactly a "tax dodge," that's just the nature of the career path that he's chosen.

That's a good point... however, there is no way in hell that Buffett doesn't have multiple CPA's and Lawyers watching the 2nd richest man in the worlds money.

I would assume you are correct, but again, there's nothing wrong with that. No one is under any moral obligation to pay more taxes than they are legally required to pay. That doesn't mean you have to support the existing tax code.

EDIT: Actually, maybe he doesn't even have people watching his money. According to Buffett, "I have a lower tax rate, counting payroll taxes, than anybody in my office and I don't have a tax shelter. I just go take the form and fill out the numbers, and I think that's very wrong." Now maybe his view of what constitutes a "tax shelter" is different than yours or mine, but it at least sounds as if he doesn't even make a great effort to minimize his taxes. Not that there would be anything wrong with doing so.

Foundations also have CPA's and Lawyers assigned to them.

The charitable contribution deduction is one of the few deductions I actually support. I agree with Buffett that generally charities are more efficient at wisely spending the money than the government is, which is exactly why we need that deduction. Unfortunately charities don't usually receive sufficient funding which is why we need government programs as well.
 
Last edited:
Not really. You can't get "paid via capital gains" in terms of compensation for your labor...capital gains is what happens when you sell a stock for more than what you paid for it. Of course Buffett probably earns a lot more from his investments than he does from his compensation at Berkshire, but that's not exactly a "tax dodge," that's just the nature of the career path that he's chosen.
My understanding is his pay comes from investments - I'm not aware of a paycheck he gets from Berkshire that is not part of an investment at this point.

I would assume you are correct, but again, there's nothing wrong with that. No one is under any moral obligation to pay more taxes than they are legally required to pay. That doesn't mean you have to support the existing tax code.

EDIT: Actually, maybe he doesn't even have people watching his money. According to Buffett, "I have a lower tax rate, counting payroll taxes, than anybody in my office and I don't have a tax shelter," Buffett said. "I just go take the form and fill out the numbers, and I think that's very wrong." Now maybe his view of what constitutes a "tax shelter" is different than yours or mine, but it at least sounds as if he doesn't even make a great effort to minimize his taxes. Not that there would be anything wrong with doing so.

First, his investments are numerous. He's got CPA's and lawyers. Second, I agree he's under no moral obligation... yet that's why he's a hypocrite. He doesn't have to, yet he says "Raise my taxes" knowing full well any tax hike using any portion of the existing tax code will not affect him, his investments, his tax shelters, etc.etc.

The charitable contribution deduction is one of the few deductions I actually support. I agree with Buffett that generally charities are more efficient at wisely spending the money than the government is, which is exactly why we need that deduction. Unfortunately charities don't usually receive sufficient funding which is why we need government programs as well.
And for billionaires, charitable contributions is a very powerful tool to hedge taxes, as the WSJ snippet pointed out.
 
My understanding is his pay comes from investments - I'm not aware of a paycheck he gets from Berkshire that is not part of an investment at this point.

I believe he mostly gets compensated in stock rather than salary. But that is still considered income, not capital gains. It becomes capital gains if the stock appreciates in value after he acquired it.

First, his investments are numerous. He's got CPA's and lawyers. Second, I agree he's under no moral obligation... yet that's why he's a hypocrite.

No he's not. Have you never benefited from a government action/program you don't personally agree with as a matter of policy?

He doesn't have to, yet he says "Raise my taxes" knowing full well any tax hike using any portion of the existing tax code will not affect him, his investments, his tax shelters, etc.etc.

I think he's calling for those rates to be raised and/or for those deductions to be eliminated. Why wouldn't that affect him?

And for billionaires, charitable contributions is a very powerful tool to hedge taxes, as the WSJ snippet pointed out.

Meh. If rich people are contributing lots of their money toward the betterment of society, I don't see what's so wrong with them giving it to charity instead of the government. On a per-dollar basis, that's probably a more efficient way of doing good anyway. That's why whenever I've called for the elimination of all tax deductions, I've always made a specific exception for charitable donations.
 
Last edited:
I believe he mostly gets compensated in stock rather than salary. But that is still considered income, not capital gains. It becomes capital gains if the stock appreciates in value after he acquired it.
Yes... and isn't Buffett touted as the best stock picker in the world? So my comment still stands...

No he's not. Have you never benefited from a government action/program you don't personally agree with as a matter of policy?
I have yet to benefit by any government action or program that I can think of. He's still a hypocrite for the reasons I've already outlined. Nothing you've provided changes that.

I think he's calling for those rates to be raised and/or for those deductions to be eliminated. Why wouldn't that affect him?
His money is in trusts, he gets paid out of capital gains, he pulls little to no salary yet makes 6 million (as of last year) a year paying 17.5%. As I already stated, unless the entire tax system is scrapped, his protections of his money will be untouched.

Meh. If rich people are contributing lots of their money toward the betterment of society, I don't see what's so wrong with them giving it to charity instead of the government. On a per-dollar basis, that's probably a more efficient way of doing good anyway. That's why whenever I've called for the elimination of all tax deductions, I've always made a specific exception for charitable donations.
On it's face, nobiless oblige is a very good idea.... the ulterior motive as a tax benefit just makes it that much more attractive. The question should be: How much charity would the billionaires give if the tax benefit for doing so was 0%?
 
Why Management Matters (and Warren Buffett is so Awesome)

"Being that Warren Buffett is in the business of investing in stocks and buying businesses, he has even further to go than your average CEO. There is a deep mistrust out there for all things “Financial,” especially stock pickers.

But Warren Buffett is above reproach. Why? He’s proven, over the years, that he will stick to his guns. He won’t take any shortcuts to make a little bit of extra money. How do we know?

We have 60+ years to look back on. His track record is spotless."

Why Management Matters (and Warren Buffett is so Awesome) | The Writers Coin
 
So then, rather than pay taxes on my money, I can just invest it to the point that I no longer "make enough" to owe taxes?


Wow, that sounds awesome, why can't I do that? Oh....wait...
 
Tell me how he's being patriotic.


He thinks that Buffett's ploy to ingratiate himself to the envious while promoting a bigger government that in turn allows Buffett more power, is good for America
 
Meh. If rich people are contributing lots of their money toward the betterment of society, I don't see what's so wrong with them giving it to charity instead of the government. On a per-dollar basis, that's probably a more efficient way of doing good anyway. That's why whenever I've called for the elimination of all tax deductions, I've always made a specific exception for charitable donations.

I agree with the point that charities are more efficient, and better at achieving their goals, than government is. And that the deductions for charitable giving is one that should remain. However, when you have a multi Billionaire stepping out there and advocating that other wealthy people should pay more in taxes to the government while he himself will leave his money to charity.

It is hypocritical to say the least.

j-mac
 
However, when you have a multi Billionaire stepping out there and advocating that other wealthy people should pay more in taxes to the government while he himself will leave his money to charity.

It is hypocritical to say the least.

j-mac
He's not advocating that all millionaires give all of their wealth to the government. He's advocating taxing their income (capital gains) at at least the same level that normal people pay taxes and raising the top level to what it was under the 90's (maybe a three or four percent increase).

You can be in favor of raising taxes ever so slightly on millionaires, give alot of your money to charity and not be a hypocrite. It's silly of you to even think that's even close to hypocritical. He's not asking for he government to take all funds that are given to charities. What world do you live in?
 
He's not advocating that all millionaires give all of their wealth to the government. He's advocating taxing their income (capital gains) at at least the same level that normal people pay taxes and raising the top level to what it was under the 90's (maybe a three or four percent increase).

You can be in favor of raising taxes ever so slightly on millionaires, give alot of your money to charity and not be a hypocrite. It's silly of you to even think that's even close to hypocritical. He's not asking for he government to take all funds that are given to charities. What world do you live in?


I live in the real world thanks for asking. However, you seem to have it confused. I didn't say that he was advocating giving ALL their wealth to the government did I? No, so you start out with a straw argument. Also, you and Warren fail to disclose that Capital Gains have already been taxed once before the gain was made, at the income rates, so that makes it a double tax to begin with.

Second, you could tax Capital gains at 100% and it wouldn't be enough to solve the problem we face today, that is why I am against it. Remember the old saying, "They came for my neighbor and I said nothing, now they come for me."

j-mac
 
Second, you could tax Capital gains at 100% and it wouldn't be enough to solve the problem we face today, that is why I am against it.
Oh, ok, good to know. Getting rid of the department of education wouldn't be enough to solve the deficit. Making sure poor people pay income taxes wouldn't solve it. Ending Obamacare wouldn't solve it. Are you against all of those things too?

Capital gains have already been taxed? That's like saying if I take my income and use it to open a business then my profits on that business should never be taxed because the initial money going in to it was already taxed. That's a stupid argument. Noone's arguing to tax the money that gets invested, but if you make millions on those investments then the profits should be taxed just as any other income. It only makes sense.
 
Oh, ok, good to know. Getting rid of the department of education wouldn't be enough to solve the deficit. Making sure poor people pay income taxes wouldn't solve it. Ending Obamacare wouldn't solve it. Are you against all of those things too?

Capital gains have already been taxed? That's like saying if I take my income and use it to open a business then my profits on that business should never be taxed because the initial money going in to it was already taxed. That's a stupid argument. Noone's arguing to tax the money that gets invested, but if you make millions on those investments then the profits should be taxed just as any other income. It only makes sense.

Only if you approach the argument from the side that government lets you keep a portion of your money, rather than the position that the money is yours.

j-mac

PS. And yes, the federal government should get the hell out of education. They have made it worse.
 
Only if you approach the argument from the side that government lets you keep a portion of your money, rather than the position that the money is yours.

j-mac

PS. And yes, the federal government should get the hell out of education. They have made it worse.
You couldn't be further from reality. Why should profits from capital gains be any different then money you make in a business that you open up using income that's been taxed? It's both profit that came from a result of you spending money that's already been taxed in order to get more money. It's the same thing.

And with the education thing, alright you think that's best. If I turned this around and used your argument that ending the department of education wouldn't be enough us from a deficit to a surplus and solve our problem, therefor it won't work, would you accept that as a logical argument against it? Of course not, that's why I reject your argument against taxing capital gains. It's a stupid argument. You either have to agree that it's a silly argument or you have to agree with your argument that you aren't in favor of getting rid of the department of education because that's just not enough to fix our problems. Which is it?
 
Last edited:
You couldn't be further from reality. Why should profits from capital gains be any different then money you make in a business that you open up using income that's been taxed? It's both profit that came from a result of you spending money that's already been taxed in order to get more money. It's the same thing.

And with the education thing, alright you think that's best. If I turned this around and used your argument that ending the department of education wouldn't be enough us from a deficit to a surplus and solve our problem, therefor it won't work, would you accept that as a logical argument against it? Of course not, that's why I reject your argument against taxing capital gains. It's a stupid argument. You either have to agree that it's a silly argument or you have to agree with your argument that you aren't in favor of getting rid of the department of education because that's just not enough to fix our problems. Which is it?

Just a question RD, let's see if you can give an answer that we can discuss.

Of the money I earn, is it mine, or the governments? and How much of it should I be allowed to keep?

j-mac
 
Just a question RD, let's see if you can give an answer that we can discuss.

Of the money I earn, is it mine, or the governments? and How much of it should I be allowed to keep?

j-mac


Here's a BETTER question...is it legal to attempt to commit suicide?
 
Just a question RD, let's see if you can give an answer that we can discuss.

Of the money I earn, is it mine, or the governments? and How much of it should I be allowed to keep?

j-mac
Oh, ok, I get the problem, I was talking way above your grade level. I'll answer in short sentences for you.

The money you earn is your money. You also live in a land of laws with a government. In return for the roads you drive on, the military that protects you, the cops you can call, the fire department that protects you, the department of education that helps keep schools running for the children of the country, and other various government agencies that make it to where we don't live in shacks and crap in buckets while having to boil water before drinking it, you pay taxes to keep those services running. To me, it's the exact same thing as saying that the money I earn is mine, how ever at the end of the month I need to cut a check to my mortgage company if I want to have a place to live. At that point, since I legally am obligated to pay them, it becomes their money. How much of it can you keep? I don't know. It's way too complicated of an answer in all honesty. I think if you make at close to the poverty level you should be able to keep alittle bit more percentage wise then if your bringing in millions, though I am against any tax that I think is so high that it will constrain businesses or people from being able to stay open and pay for the basics. Thankfully, right now, the country has uniformly moderate to low tax rates as compared to the rest of the industrialized world and as compared to our historical tax rates.

Now back to the bigger picture. Regardless of whether you think that the money you earn is yours or the governments or whatever, that makes no logical argument that capital gains taxes should be drastically lower than any other income. It's income either way. I don't understand why you think that capital gains, money that has been made from investing income on investments, and money that has been made from investing money into a new business venture, should be treated any differently. Either way it's money that has been risked in an attempt to bring in more money.

Now please answer that question and leave the whole "Is it my money or the governments money?" bull**** at the door. It has nothing at all to do with why you would treat these two incomes differently.
 
Oh, ok, I get the problem, I was talking way above your grade level. I'll answer in short sentences for you.

The money you earn is your money. You also live in a land of laws with a government. In return for the roads you drive on, the military that protects you, the cops you can call, the fire department that protects you, the department of education that helps keep schools running for the children of the country, and other various government agencies that make it to where we don't live in shacks and crap in buckets while having to boil water before drinking it, you pay taxes to keep those services running. To me, it's the exact same thing as saying that the money I earn is mine, how ever at the end of the month I need to cut a check to my mortgage company if I want to have a place to live. At that point, since I legally am obligated to pay them, it becomes their money. How much of it can you keep? I don't know. It's way too complicated of an answer in all honesty. I think if you make at close to the poverty level you should be able to keep alittle bit more percentage wise then if your bringing in millions, though I am against any tax that I think is so high that it will constrain businesses or people from being able to stay open and pay for the basics. Thankfully, right now, the country has uniformly moderate to low tax rates as compared to the rest of the industrialized world and as compared to our historical tax rates.

Now back to the bigger picture. Regardless of whether you think that the money you earn is yours or the governments or whatever, that makes no logical argument that capital gains taxes should be drastically lower than any other income. It's income either way. I don't understand why you think that capital gains, money that has been made from investing income on investments, and money that has been made from investing money into a new business venture, should be treated any differently. Either way it's money that has been risked in an attempt to bring in more money.

Now please answer that question and leave the whole "Is it my money or the governments money?" bull**** at the door. It has nothing at all to do with why you would treat these two incomes differently.

If you don't mind I will take a shot at your question.

There are all sorts of preferences in the tax code. The logic behind capital gains is that lowers the cost of capital in an economy which relies heavily om investment as our workers are materially higher paid than their competitors in much of the world. Now you may not like that preference as someone else might not like the preference for having a lot of kids ( personal exemptions).

All of this avoids the obvious issue for both sides of the tax argument. That is we know the tax system is broken but neither side seems willing to review the overall broken system instead uses politics to point to one nutty think or the other.
 
If you don't mind I will take a shot at your question.
Absolutely dude, shoot away.
There are all sorts of preferences in the tax code. The logic behind capital gains is that lowers the cost of capital in an economy which relies heavily om investment as our workers are materially higher paid than their competitors in much of the world. Now you may not like that preference as someone else might not like the preference for having a lot of kids ( personal exemptions).

All of this avoids the obvious issue for both sides of the tax argument. That is we know the tax system is broken but neither side seems willing to review the overall broken system instead uses politics to point to one nutty think or the other.
Very reasoned, very valid, very logical response. I can see the reason of lowering the taxes capital gains. The people will then use that money, and hopefully reinvest it, adding money to the overall economy. I think it's a valid argument. The exact same thing, however, can be said of any tax really. If we lower the taxes on all businesses to what it is on capital gains then they'll have more to invest, open other ventures, hire employees, etc... the problem is I don't understand why capital gains should be taxed at such a different rate. I see it as income regardless. You could make the case that lowering taxes on them help the economy but that could be said about any tax, and as with any other tax their comes a point where you're getting diminishing returns and somehow we have to finance our country's ability to protect us via a strong military, keep our water and air clean etc. etc.

Now I'm also perfectly fine admitting that there are areas of spending that need to be trimmed, but at the same time I think we should consider loopholes in the tax code and areas of the tax code that could be revised to gain revenue in a way that does as little damage to the economy as possible.

In a world where I could do anything I wished like a dictator, I'd maintain current tax rates, and promise no tax increase for three years or so, if I would have came in 2009 like Obama, I would have promised a first term with no new taxes and spending on the infrastructure and stimulus spending to spur job growth. After the economy picks up we look at increasing revenue and trimming budgets. A down economy is a terrible time to do either in all honesty.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom