4 ms·

The problem is that gifts to charity aren't coercive. I know, it's strange to say that it's a problem if it isn't coercive, and I'd agree that many of the inef

by geebee 15y ago

The problem is that gifts to charity aren't coercive. I know, it's strange to say that it's a problem if it isn't coercive, and I'd agree that many of the inefficiencies of government stem from the coercive nature of taxes (no need to convince people to give you money if you can just take it by force). But I'm really a moderate in all of this - I personally don't think a modern state can survive on donations, or a "pay only if you think the government will do a good job with the money" tax code. We're gonna have to collect some taxes, rich people (in my opinion) should pay more than poor people, and there's no way people, rich or poor, are just going to pony up out of a deep affection and fondness for the federal government. If tax rates are going to be paid and progressive (they actually aren't), then they'll have to be coercive. I think what Mr. Buffet is arguing here is that the rich need to be coerced into paying more in taxes than they currently do. I'm inclined to agree with him, even if I have to hold my nose as I do.

ginsweater 15y ago
It's not just that - even when we're talking Warren Buffett here, the scale of the US govt is totally different. Buffett's entire fortune ($50B according to Wikipedia) would only cover a few weeks' worth of borrowing and then we're right back where we started only Warren Buffett has no more fortune. It's silly to say we should expect him to do that. What he's saying by advocating tax raises is "I will pay more if I know that everyone else will also pay more." He's not interested in paying $XM to reduce the debt by $XM, but he would happily pay a personal cost of $XM if it meant reducing the debt by $XB. (This is called "collective action," and it's also Groupon's business model.)
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  >What he's saying by advocating tax raises is "I will pay more if I know that everyone else will also pay more." No he isn't. He's saying precisely the opposite: "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...But for those making more than $1 million...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...I would suggest an additional increase in rate."
  - ScottBurson 15y ago
    He's willing to pay more if everyone else at his income level pays more.
  - bluedanieru 15y ago
    Don't be obtuse, the parent (and Warren Buffet) clearly meant others in his income bracket.
- orblivion 15y ago
  Why not? It's not like it's all or nothing. The taxes paid by the others today will be at least somewhat useful to the federal government before the billionaires pay their "fair share". If Buffet pitches in, it's just that much better for the federal government, and an example to set for his friends.
tomjen3 15y ago
Even at the current tax rates, Buffet properly pays more than you do. And he certainly pay more than those who are on the various forms of government relief.
- keithnoizu 15y ago
  More is a relative term, for instance he's not being taxed out of a holiday, eating out one or two times a month, having enough food to support his family, etc. The utility on that 7million is much lower for him than say 20k a year would be for someone making less than 100,000 a year.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    More is not a relative term. And no I am not talking utility, but cold hard cash numbers.
    - keithnoizu 15y ago
      And i'm talking percentage of income and percentage of income after deducting cost of living.
      - tomjen3 15y ago
        That is a stupid way to measure how much one should pay in tax, honestly. You rent, electricity, food and clothing doesn't go up because you double your income (unless you move, but then you presumably get better housing too). Why should your tax?
        wpietri 15y ago
        Because a) you can afford it better, and b) you have benefited more from the society that taxes help pay for. As a business owner, I am perfectly happy to pay more as my income goes up, because my business depends on a well-run society in a million ways.
        15y ago

by geebee 15y ago

ginsweater 15y ago

It's not just that - even when we're talking Warren Buffett here, the scale of the US govt is totally different. Buffett's entire fortune ($50B according to Wikipedia) would only cover a few weeks' worth of borrowing and then we're right back where we started only Warren Buffett has no more fortune. It's silly to say we should expect him to do that. What he's saying by advocating tax raises is "I will pay more if I know that everyone else will also pay more." He's not interested in paying $XM to reduce the debt by $XM, but he would happily pay a personal cost of $XM if it meant reducing the debt by $XB. (This is called "collective action," and it's also Groupon's business model.)

redthrowaway 15y ago
>What he's saying by advocating tax raises is "I will pay more if I know that everyone else will also pay more." No he isn't. He's saying precisely the opposite: "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...But for those making more than $1 million...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...I would suggest an additional increase in rate."
- ScottBurson 15y ago
  He's willing to pay more if everyone else at his income level pays more.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  Don't be obtuse, the parent (and Warren Buffet) clearly meant others in his income bracket.
orblivion 15y ago
Why not? It's not like it's all or nothing. The taxes paid by the others today will be at least somewhat useful to the federal government before the billionaires pay their "fair share". If Buffet pitches in, it's just that much better for the federal government, and an example to set for his friends.

tomjen3 15y ago

Even at the current tax rates, Buffet properly pays more than you do. And he certainly pay more than those who are on the various forms of government relief.

keithnoizu 15y ago
More is a relative term, for instance he's not being taxed out of a holiday, eating out one or two times a month, having enough food to support his family, etc. The utility on that 7million is much lower for him than say 20k a year would be for someone making less than 100,000 a year.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  More is not a relative term. And no I am not talking utility, but cold hard cash numbers.
  - keithnoizu 15y ago
    And i'm talking percentage of income and percentage of income after deducting cost of living.
    - tomjen3 15y ago
      That is a stupid way to measure how much one should pay in tax, honestly. You rent, electricity, food and clothing doesn't go up because you double your income (unless you move, but then you presumably get better housing too). Why should your tax?
      - wpietri 15y ago
        Because a) you can afford it better, and b) you have benefited more from the society that taxes help pay for. As a business owner, I am perfectly happy to pay more as my income goes up, because my business depends on a well-run society in a million ways.
      - 15y ago