5 ms·

>> However he does pay less taxes than his secretary No, he does not. He claims he paid $1,850,000 in federal taxes in 2015, do you think his secretary earned

>> However he does pay less taxes than his secretary No, he does not. He claims he paid $1,850,000 in federal taxes in 2015, do you think his secretary earned that much, let alone paid that much in taxes? In addition: “In 2019, Berkshire sent $3.6 billion to the U.S. Treasury to pay its current income tax,” Buffett said in his annual letter to shareholders. “The U.S. government collected $243 billion from corporate income tax payments during the same period. From these statistics, you can take pride that your company delivered 1.5% of the federal income taxes paid by all of corporate America.” >> What's the point of being the wealthiest nation ever on paper, if there's terrible schools, high infant mortality, and lead in the drinking pipes? A higher percentage of people graduate from college today than graduated from high school a hundred years ago, infant mortality is 6 per 1000 today vs. 100 per 1000 a hundred years ago, and blood lead levels in children have been reduced so much that it is claimed to be largely responsible for the drop in crime rates since the 1980s. The point of getting wealthy is that it gives you resources to deal with your problems.

criddell 6y ago
> No, he does not. A quick googling suggest that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Which is a very different claim.
  - z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
    equally corrupt and even sadder you shill so hard for the scum
  - criddell 6y ago
    It still feels equally outrageous to me.
    - rufus_foreman 6y ago
      OK let me get this straight: Scenario one: Warren Buffet's secretary (making up some numbers here) makes $50K a year, twice the average salary for a secretary, and pays around 8K income tax, for an effective tax rate of 16%, And Warren Buffet pays $7000 in taxes. Scenario two: Warren Buffet's secretary (making up some numbers here) makes $50K a year, twice the average salary for a secretary, and pays around 8K income tax, for an effective tax rate of 16%, And Warren Buffet pays $1,850,000 in taxes. Those two are equally outrageous to you?
quietbritishjim 6y ago
>> However he does pay less taxes than his secretary > No, he does not. He claims he paid $1,850,000 in federal taxes in 2015, do you think his secretary earned that much, let alone paid that much in taxes? I think it was clear that they meant as a fraction of income, not as an absolute value.
- aerosmile 6y ago
  The whole Buffett vs his secretary tax thing is just as misunderstood as the 1992 hot coffee lawsuit against McDonald's, which at the time was considered to be frivolous and a sign that the legal system in the US is broken. I recommend reading the actual facts behind this case [1] - it will make you appreciate our legal system. Similarly, the Buffett story can be traced back to an interview he gave in 2007 where he shared that his tax rate was 17.7%, whereas the average tax rate of the employees in his office was 32.9% [2]. On the surface, this is shocking and will make you want to rebel against the system. But a closer look reveals that the bulk of Buffett's income comes from dividends and long-term capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income. We might argue about the specific tax rate numbers, but fundamentally there are good reasons for those tax rates not to be identical [3], and as such Buffett paying a lower tax rate should not be causing any outrage (don't confuse this with my view of the overall tax code, I am just focusing on the specific example above). By the way, you may wonder why Buffett does what he does, including giving the interview I referenced above and going through the trouble of collecting the tax rate of his employees, sharing his own tax rate, etc. He's coming across as being generous for voicing his support for a higher income tax rate for the wealthy (aka, the Buffett rule). But in reality he's just deflecting from other potential sources of taxes, such as taxing people on wealth vs on income (which someone in his wealth bracket can easily live without). This scheme becomes even more obvious when you observe his attacks on Elizabeth Warren [4] (who is pro-wealth tax), while being more "aligned" with AOC [5]. [1] https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts [2] https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/ https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-w... [3] https://taxfoundation.org/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-rate https://taxfoundation.org/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-... [4] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/02/warren_buffett_elizabeth_warren_would_do_better_if_she_was_less_angry_and_demonized_less.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/02/warren_bu... [5] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/ocasio-cortez-and-warren-buffett-agree-on-this-key-point-about-taxes.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/ocasio-cortez-and-warren-buf...
paxys 6y ago
Warren Buffet pays a smaller percentage of his annual income towards taxes than his secretary. Income tax brackets were created to not make it a regressive tax, but it very clearly is that today. 20% of your income is a lot more valuable to you when you make $50K vs $50M a year.
jessaustin 6y ago
...you can take pride that your company delivered 1.5% of the federal income taxes paid by all of corporate America. IME (including writing the actual SQL queries against a corporate billing system that calculated ideal writeoff amounts every year), corporations evade so many taxes that this amounts to an empty boast. 1.5% of bupkis is bupkis. Supporting the state through income taxes is inherently foolish, and moreover we do it in the most foolish way one could imagine.

criddell 6y ago

> No, he does not. A quick googling suggest that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

BurningFrog 6y ago
Which is a very different claim.
- z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
  equally corrupt and even sadder you shill so hard for the scum
- criddell 6y ago
  It still feels equally outrageous to me.
  - rufus_foreman 6y ago
    OK let me get this straight: Scenario one: Warren Buffet's secretary (making up some numbers here) makes $50K a year, twice the average salary for a secretary, and pays around 8K income tax, for an effective tax rate of 16%, And Warren Buffet pays $7000 in taxes. Scenario two: Warren Buffet's secretary (making up some numbers here) makes $50K a year, twice the average salary for a secretary, and pays around 8K income tax, for an effective tax rate of 16%, And Warren Buffet pays $1,850,000 in taxes. Those two are equally outrageous to you?

quietbritishjim 6y ago

>> However he does pay less taxes than his secretary > No, he does not. He claims he paid $1,850,000 in federal taxes in 2015, do you think his secretary earned that much, let alone paid that much in taxes? I think it was clear that they meant as a fraction of income, not as an absolute value.

aerosmile 6y ago
The whole Buffett vs his secretary tax thing is just as misunderstood as the 1992 hot coffee lawsuit against McDonald's, which at the time was considered to be frivolous and a sign that the legal system in the US is broken. I recommend reading the actual facts behind this case [1] - it will make you appreciate our legal system. Similarly, the Buffett story can be traced back to an interview he gave in 2007 where he shared that his tax rate was 17.7%, whereas the average tax rate of the employees in his office was 32.9% [2]. On the surface, this is shocking and will make you want to rebel against the system. But a closer look reveals that the bulk of Buffett's income comes from dividends and long-term capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income. We might argue about the specific tax rate numbers, but fundamentally there are good reasons for those tax rates not to be identical [3], and as such Buffett paying a lower tax rate should not be causing any outrage (don't confuse this with my view of the overall tax code, I am just focusing on the specific example above). By the way, you may wonder why Buffett does what he does, including giving the interview I referenced above and going through the trouble of collecting the tax rate of his employees, sharing his own tax rate, etc. He's coming across as being generous for voicing his support for a higher income tax rate for the wealthy (aka, the Buffett rule). But in reality he's just deflecting from other potential sources of taxes, such as taxing people on wealth vs on income (which someone in his wealth bracket can easily live without). This scheme becomes even more obvious when you observe his attacks on Elizabeth Warren [4] (who is pro-wealth tax), while being more "aligned" with AOC [5]. [1] https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts [2] https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/ https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-w... [3] https://taxfoundation.org/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-rate https://taxfoundation.org/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-... [4] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/02/warren_buffett_elizabeth_warren_would_do_better_if_she_was_less_angry_and_demonized_less.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/02/warren_bu... [5] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/ocasio-cortez-and-warren-buffett-agree-on-this-key-point-about-taxes.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/ocasio-cortez-and-warren-buf...

paxys 6y ago

Warren Buffet pays a smaller percentage of his annual income towards taxes than his secretary. Income tax brackets were created to not make it a regressive tax, but it very clearly is that today. 20% of your income is a lot more valuable to you when you make $50K vs $50M a year.

jessaustin 6y ago

...you can take pride that your company delivered 1.5% of the federal income taxes paid by all of corporate America. IME (including writing the actual SQL queries against a corporate billing system that calculated ideal writeoff amounts every year), corporations evade so many taxes that this amounts to an empty boast. 1.5% of bupkis is bupkis. Supporting the state through income taxes is inherently foolish, and moreover we do it in the most foolish way one could imagine.