12 ms·

All of the comments here attacking Warren Buffett's authenticity, suggesting that he should put his money where his mouth is and write the Treasury a big fat ch

by orijing 15y ago

All of the comments here attacking Warren Buffett's authenticity, suggesting that he should put his money where his mouth is and write the Treasury a big fat check, are missing the whole point. Services provided by the government are public goods. It's blindingly obvious that a single person cannot pay for those public goods. Just Buffett's own contributions, no matter how much he donates, will not be enough to solve our budget issue. It's called shared sacrifice because it's meaningless unless everyone participates. It's like the neighborhood park (i.e. medicare/social security): Everyone wants one, but nobody wants to pay for it. In steps the neighborhood's rich kid (Buffett), who suggests that all the rich kids pitch in to pay for the park. If that happened, everyone would be made better off, but one kid alone isn't enough. This is a very canonical problem of public services provisioning and funding. It's completely naive to sit back and suggest Buffett tackle the issue himself, because we all know that's ridiculous. Open your eyes. The problem is not Buffett's to solve. But he recognizes that there is a problem. Apologies for the harsh tone, but it baffles me how members of Hacker News can think so naively. The attacks on Buffett are utterly unfair and unjustified. We should all have an open mind and try to understand the proposal.

cromulent 15y ago
Agreed. He's not trying to "make a donation", he's saying that everyone should share the burden - including himself and people like him. It's not just that the rich kids should pay for the park, it's that everyone but the rich kids are being asked to pay some extra.
- gaius 15y ago
  Does Mr Buffett employ an accountant to do his taxes? Does said accountant employ any tax avoidance strategies?
  - epscylonb 15y ago
    Wouldn't you if you had tons of money?, especially if all the other "rich kids" are doing the same?. If you expect people to always do the altruistic thing then be prepared for a life full of disappointment. The best you can do is try to shape peoples behavior. Personally I would prefer a flat percentage rate of tax with an exception for very low incomes where it just isn't worth the governments time trying to collect it. This would probably raise most peoples tax and lower rich peoples tax but I believe it is "fairer" for everybody to pay the same fixed proportion of their income. At the same time though I would simplify business taxes as well, get rid of loopholes, stop companies that do business in a country off shoring their profits. It is insane that some companies view their accounting departments as profit centers. Flat tax economies boom, and they are progressive in the sense that there is no penalty for trying to earn more money.
    - seabee 15y ago
      > a flat percentage rate of tax with an exception for very low incomes That's not a flat tax, then, is it? It's progressive with two bands, 0% and x%. There is a real case for tax simplification, but the progressive nature of income tax is probably the simplest thing in the entire tax code! It's the classification of different kinds of income and capital gains, exemptions and penalties for particular uses of money/assets that makes it challenging and is the reason there is real money in tax avoidance. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Finally, a progressive tax means higher earners pay a larger proportion of their income than lower earners. It's hard to gauge the validity of your argument when your assertions run contrary to the definitions of the words you use.
      - epscylonb 15y ago
        The reason I put fairer in quotes is because it is a term that can be argued over. Yes two bands, with the focus on making it attractive for people to earn money and pay tax, ideally the 0% band would be just enough to clothe, feed yourself and pay rent in a bad neighbourhood. Progressive is a word that seems to mean different things to the left and the right, I notice you didn't define it. As I said a flat tax is economically progressive because it doesn't discourage people from trying to earn more money. At the moment you have people buying houses they don't need or using complex financial instruments just to do something with their money because if they don't they will get taxed more. Investing this money for the sake of it is not always beneficial to the economy or society, I favour a persons right to choose what to do with their own money. I am coming from this from a libertarian perspective, whether you earn 50k a year or 500k the government should not be taking a higher percentage from you than other people. Especially considering that with a percentage rate whilst the proportion is the same, the actual amount of tax high earners pay is greater (which is socially progressive enough for me, but perhaps not for you). I believe I am using the word proportion correctly here, but if not please feel free to let me know how I have got it wrong. Here in the UK the top rate of tax is 50%. I doubt I will ever be taxed at that rate but the government taking half a persons income scares me a little, no wonder people try to move their money around so the taxman can't get at it.
  - sp332 15y ago
    Buffet famously said that his receptionists paid a higher tax rate than he did. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ec...
    - camiller 15y ago
      Buffet's receptionists should get a good tax guy. With the availability of tax breaks for even middle class income ranges there is no reason his receptionists should be paying more.
  - HSO 15y ago
    From his biography ("The Snowball"): "He did the bookkeeping himself and prepared his own tax returns. With its numbers, accuracy, and the measuring of results, the recordkeeping aspect of the job pleased him." [...] "Warren was still handling all the money and doing all the clerical work himself: filing the tax returns,..." [...] "'Bill started trying to convince me to get a computer. I said, I don’t know what it’s going to do for me. I don’t care how my stock portfolio is doing every five minutes. And I can do my income taxes in my head.'" Seems like indeed he is doing them himself (his personal tax bill; to do it for Berkshire, they surely have hired help)
  - cromulent 15y ago
    I don't know, but I would assume so. I think most people try to pay the minimum tax they are required to, and I guess that includes Mr Buffet. However, that's not the point. He's not saying "I want to personally pay more tax", he's saying "Why are people like me not being required to pay the same percentage tax as middle-income earners"?
    - jterce 15y ago
      Do you realize that the "same percentage tax as middle-income earners" would be LOWER than what they currently pay? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2011_income_brackets_and_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States...
      - dbingham 15y ago
        Only if you take into account the marginal rates and ignore the many, many breaks and loopholes.
        camiller 15y ago
        OK, what about the many "breaks and loopholes." for the other tax brackets? I'm in the 25% bracket (Married filing jointly, $68,001 - $137,300) and I paid under 6% effective rate for each of the last few years.
      - cpeterso 15y ago
        Buffet is not talking about income tax. He's talking about capital gains taxes, since most wealthy people are making money from investments, not paychecks.
  - JabavuAdams 15y ago
    That's not the least bit relevant. It's almost a category error. Buffet's talking about setting the rules of the game, not about optimizing within the rules that have been set.
    - gaius 15y ago
      Of course it's relevant. At his level, he can pay however much tax he wants, anywhere in the world, and this will always be the case. What he's calling for is other people paying more tax.
      - JabavuAdams 15y ago
        Other people with incomes of more than $1 million. Would you have the same problem if that were $10 million, instead?
        gaius 15y ago
        Why not $100,000? That's a lot of money too.
        JabavuAdams 15y ago
        The amount matters. At $100k I can't buy a nice house with 1 year's income, but at $10M I clearly can. What was the point of your response, anyway? Please elaborate.
      - krschultz 15y ago
        You fundamentally miss his point. Even without finding a thousand loopholes to get out of his taxes, he will pay a lower percentage just based on HOW he makes his money. 1) The payroll tax is capped, so a guy making exactly the income it is capped at, and a guy making 100x that, pay exactly the same payroll tax. No accountant required and it is an enormous difference. For Warren, that is millions of dollars right there. 2) Money made from investments is taxed at a lower rate than salary, EVEN IF INVESTING IS YOUR JOB. I personally believe that money you have paid taxes on before should never have capital gains taxes on it - basically you are getting taxed twice. If I choose to take my money and invest it and then buy a car later I pay more tax than a guy who just takes his money and buys a car. So i'm not fan of capital gains taxes. But a guy who gets paid by investing and has no other income should be paying income taxes, not capital gains taxes. How you distinguish the two is definitely hard, but smarter people than me can figure out a way to make that happen.
  - polshaw 15y ago
    He certainly doesn't employ all the tax avoidance strategies available to him.. implied here[1]. But lets not forget, he has to act in the interests of shareholders, not just himself, in his business interests. 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY&t=2m34s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY&t=2m34s
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    He does not need to do anything unusual to avoid paying taxes because the law is setup to give him such a low rate. One of my aunts was once audited by the IRS who is not going to do anything creative to help people out. Net result, her rebate was close to 1 million. She had a fairly competent Accountant and good records but several minor rules helped her out.
shmulkey18 15y ago
"It's blindingly obvious that a single person cannot pay for those public goods." ... "It's called shared sacrifice because it's meaningless unless everyone participates." Huh? By this logic, taxes are "meaningless" unless everyone pays taxes. However, many poor and lower-income people do not pay income taxes. Does that render the income tax "meaningless"? Also, the claim that it's "like the neighborhood park... [e]veryone wants one, but no one wants to pay for it" is absurd. We see many examples of charitable contributions made by the rich and the middle class which are used to purchase public goods such as museums, nature preserves and the like. When push comes to shove, what Buffet really wants -- and what you are advocating when you say that no matter how much money he donates, it "will not be enough to solve our budget issues" -- is an increase in the size of government fueled by higher taxes, rather than a diminution of its scope by reducing the funds made available to it. A bigger government benefits crony capitalists like Buffet, because they have sufficient power and influence to ensure that the goodies that can be redistributed by the Leviathan are steered their way. I wish Buffet would be honest enough to say that, rather than bloviating about how terrible it is that he doesn't pay enough taxes when he is unwilling to take the obvious direct action necessary to rectify that unfortunate situation.
- ryannielsen 15y ago
  > Also, the claim that it's "like the neighborhood park... [e]veryone > wants one, but no one wants to pay for it" is absurd. We see many > examples of charitable contributions made by the rich and the middle > class which are used to purchase public goods such as museums, nature > preserves and the like. We also see many cases of governments which have much higher tax rates than ours and provide fantastic public services. > When push comes to shove, what Buffet really wants -- and what you are > advocating when you say that no matter how much money he donates, it > "will not be enough to solve our budget issues" -- is an increase in the > size of government fueled by higher taxes, rather than a diminution of > its scope by reducing the funds made available to it. Being blunt: How do you know what Buffett really wants, or what orijing is really advocating? You've just described how you perceive Buffett's motives and orijing's assertions. And why present this as a "lower taxes vs. smaller government" issue? That seems incredibly disingenuous. What is truly being advocated by many is a combination of both. What's the best way to solve a debt issue? Increase income while also decreasing spending. Why cripple the process by ignoring half the solution? > A bigger government benefits crony capitalists like Buffet, because they > have sufficient power and influence to ensure that the goodies that can > be redistributed by the Leviathan are steered their way. I wish Buffet > would be honest enough to say that, rather than bloviating about how > terrible it is that he doesn't pay enough taxes when he is unwilling to > take the obvious direct action necessary to rectify that unfortunate > situation. What evidence do you have of Buffett benefiting from government programs, or having taken advantage of cronyism? Honest question – he very well may have significantly increased his wealth from connections with other "crony capitalists". I have no evidence either way. That said, do we need to look at past examples of when aggressive government spending has helped individuals or small companies? Once again, this doesn't need to be a black and white world – as the spender of last resort, the government can provide liquidity and resources to individuals, small companies, and large companies when no one else is willing to take the risk. Yes, some people may profit immensely as a result. Does that mean those programs were wrong? And a bigger government doesn't have to only benefit "crony capitalists"... I don't understand why a holistic view is so rarely considered in these discussions. Rather than making this an "right vs. wrong", "rich vs. poor", "liberal vs. conservative", "communist vs. capitalist" argument, let's make it a discussion to find the best solution to our problems. Only then will we actually solve the problems our country faces.
tomjen3 15y ago
The attacks on him is just and fair because he demands the right to take by force other peoples money. The rich already pay the most tax. Why should they pay more?
- ryannielsen 15y ago
  I honestly don't understand your question. I don't mean that statement to be argumentative – I really don't understand. Are you saying the top 1% should pay what I paid in taxes last year? I paid around $100k. I'm not sure why someone making millions to billions a year should only pay $100k. If you assert I should pay the same as high-income individuals, should someone making far less than I am also pay $100k? To flip it around, if you assert someone making less than me should not pay the same dollar amount as me, then why should someone making many orders of magnitude more than me pay the same dollar amount? Now then, if I assume you're asserting the mega-rich should pay the same percentage as me, then we both agree that Buffett should pay more. My tax rate was 23% while Buffett's was only 17%. How ever you slice it, someone's going to have to pay more than someone else. Either the poor need to pay less since they can't afford the flat dollar rate that's established, or the rich need to pay more because the flat percentage rate means they owe more. Thus, I don't understand your question – it seems logical that, given any taxation system, the rich should pay more. Am I missing something?
  - Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
    I think, if you paid £100k in taxes, and you say that was 23% of your income, that puts you well within the 1% you talk about.
    - Ralith 15y ago
      Whether or not he correctly estimated the size of the difference between them, his points stand.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    I was just trying to point out the fact that taxes is one of the few (if not only thing) that is almost always paid as a percentage of income. This messes up how people see taxes and how the burden is distributed. And make people say things like Warren Buffent pays less taxes than I do. You don't buy soldiers, schools, police officers and roads with percentage of incomes. You buy them with dollars, which is why I argue that we should measure the paid tax in dollars and realize that the rich already pay the largest share of it. Since they don't actually use more government services (they properly use less, but that is another matter) I can't see the problem with reducing the amount paid by the highest income earners.
dredmorbius 15y ago
I'll try to help you out a bit. Taxation is Mutual Coercion, Mutually Agreed On. The phrase was used by Dr. Garrett Hardin in his 1968 essay on global overpopulation, "The Tragedy of the Commons". Oh, and the example Hardin explicitly cited as an example of mutual coercion? Taxes: "Who enjoys taxes? We all grumble about them. But we accept compulsory taxes because we recognize that voluntary taxes would favor the conscienceless. We institute and (grumblingly) support taxes and other coercive devices to escape the horror of the commons." http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_... The "just pay voluntary taxes" has been very, very dead for well over 40 years.

by orijing 15y ago

cromulent 15y ago

Agreed. He's not trying to "make a donation", he's saying that everyone should share the burden - including himself and people like him. It's not just that the rich kids should pay for the park, it's that everyone but the rich kids are being asked to pay some extra.

gaius 15y ago
Does Mr Buffett employ an accountant to do his taxes? Does said accountant employ any tax avoidance strategies?
- epscylonb 15y ago
  Wouldn't you if you had tons of money?, especially if all the other "rich kids" are doing the same?. If you expect people to always do the altruistic thing then be prepared for a life full of disappointment. The best you can do is try to shape peoples behavior. Personally I would prefer a flat percentage rate of tax with an exception for very low incomes where it just isn't worth the governments time trying to collect it. This would probably raise most peoples tax and lower rich peoples tax but I believe it is "fairer" for everybody to pay the same fixed proportion of their income. At the same time though I would simplify business taxes as well, get rid of loopholes, stop companies that do business in a country off shoring their profits. It is insane that some companies view their accounting departments as profit centers. Flat tax economies boom, and they are progressive in the sense that there is no penalty for trying to earn more money.
  - seabee 15y ago
    > a flat percentage rate of tax with an exception for very low incomes That's not a flat tax, then, is it? It's progressive with two bands, 0% and x%. There is a real case for tax simplification, but the progressive nature of income tax is probably the simplest thing in the entire tax code! It's the classification of different kinds of income and capital gains, exemptions and penalties for particular uses of money/assets that makes it challenging and is the reason there is real money in tax avoidance. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Finally, a progressive tax means higher earners pay a larger proportion of their income than lower earners. It's hard to gauge the validity of your argument when your assertions run contrary to the definitions of the words you use.
    - epscylonb 15y ago
      The reason I put fairer in quotes is because it is a term that can be argued over. Yes two bands, with the focus on making it attractive for people to earn money and pay tax, ideally the 0% band would be just enough to clothe, feed yourself and pay rent in a bad neighbourhood. Progressive is a word that seems to mean different things to the left and the right, I notice you didn't define it. As I said a flat tax is economically progressive because it doesn't discourage people from trying to earn more money. At the moment you have people buying houses they don't need or using complex financial instruments just to do something with their money because if they don't they will get taxed more. Investing this money for the sake of it is not always beneficial to the economy or society, I favour a persons right to choose what to do with their own money. I am coming from this from a libertarian perspective, whether you earn 50k a year or 500k the government should not be taking a higher percentage from you than other people. Especially considering that with a percentage rate whilst the proportion is the same, the actual amount of tax high earners pay is greater (which is socially progressive enough for me, but perhaps not for you). I believe I am using the word proportion correctly here, but if not please feel free to let me know how I have got it wrong. Here in the UK the top rate of tax is 50%. I doubt I will ever be taxed at that rate but the government taking half a persons income scares me a little, no wonder people try to move their money around so the taxman can't get at it.
- sp332 15y ago
  Buffet famously said that his receptionists paid a higher tax rate than he did. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ec...
  - camiller 15y ago
    Buffet's receptionists should get a good tax guy. With the availability of tax breaks for even middle class income ranges there is no reason his receptionists should be paying more.
- HSO 15y ago
  From his biography ("The Snowball"): "He did the bookkeeping himself and prepared his own tax returns. With its numbers, accuracy, and the measuring of results, the recordkeeping aspect of the job pleased him." [...] "Warren was still handling all the money and doing all the clerical work himself: filing the tax returns,..." [...] "'Bill started trying to convince me to get a computer. I said, I don’t know what it’s going to do for me. I don’t care how my stock portfolio is doing every five minutes. And I can do my income taxes in my head.'" Seems like indeed he is doing them himself (his personal tax bill; to do it for Berkshire, they surely have hired help)
- cromulent 15y ago
  I don't know, but I would assume so. I think most people try to pay the minimum tax they are required to, and I guess that includes Mr Buffet. However, that's not the point. He's not saying "I want to personally pay more tax", he's saying "Why are people like me not being required to pay the same percentage tax as middle-income earners"?
  - jterce 15y ago
    Do you realize that the "same percentage tax as middle-income earners" would be LOWER than what they currently pay? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2011_income_brackets_and_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States...
    - dbingham 15y ago
      Only if you take into account the marginal rates and ignore the many, many breaks and loopholes.
      - camiller 15y ago
        OK, what about the many "breaks and loopholes." for the other tax brackets? I'm in the 25% bracket (Married filing jointly, $68,001 - $137,300) and I paid under 6% effective rate for each of the last few years.
    - cpeterso 15y ago
      Buffet is not talking about income tax. He's talking about capital gains taxes, since most wealthy people are making money from investments, not paychecks.
- JabavuAdams 15y ago
  That's not the least bit relevant. It's almost a category error. Buffet's talking about setting the rules of the game, not about optimizing within the rules that have been set.
  - gaius 15y ago
    Of course it's relevant. At his level, he can pay however much tax he wants, anywhere in the world, and this will always be the case. What he's calling for is other people paying more tax.
    - JabavuAdams 15y ago
      Other people with incomes of more than $1 million. Would you have the same problem if that were $10 million, instead?
      - gaius 15y ago
        Why not $100,000? That's a lot of money too.
        JabavuAdams 15y ago
        The amount matters. At $100k I can't buy a nice house with 1 year's income, but at $10M I clearly can. What was the point of your response, anyway? Please elaborate.
    - krschultz 15y ago
      You fundamentally miss his point. Even without finding a thousand loopholes to get out of his taxes, he will pay a lower percentage just based on HOW he makes his money. 1) The payroll tax is capped, so a guy making exactly the income it is capped at, and a guy making 100x that, pay exactly the same payroll tax. No accountant required and it is an enormous difference. For Warren, that is millions of dollars right there. 2) Money made from investments is taxed at a lower rate than salary, EVEN IF INVESTING IS YOUR JOB. I personally believe that money you have paid taxes on before should never have capital gains taxes on it - basically you are getting taxed twice. If I choose to take my money and invest it and then buy a car later I pay more tax than a guy who just takes his money and buys a car. So i'm not fan of capital gains taxes. But a guy who gets paid by investing and has no other income should be paying income taxes, not capital gains taxes. How you distinguish the two is definitely hard, but smarter people than me can figure out a way to make that happen.
- polshaw 15y ago
  He certainly doesn't employ all the tax avoidance strategies available to him.. implied here[1]. But lets not forget, he has to act in the interests of shareholders, not just himself, in his business interests. 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY&t=2m34s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY&t=2m34s
- onemoreact 15y ago
  He does not need to do anything unusual to avoid paying taxes because the law is setup to give him such a low rate. One of my aunts was once audited by the IRS who is not going to do anything creative to help people out. Net result, her rebate was close to 1 million. She had a fairly competent Accountant and good records but several minor rules helped her out.

shmulkey18 15y ago

"It's blindingly obvious that a single person cannot pay for those public goods." ... "It's called shared sacrifice because it's meaningless unless everyone participates." Huh? By this logic, taxes are "meaningless" unless everyone pays taxes. However, many poor and lower-income people do not pay income taxes. Does that render the income tax "meaningless"? Also, the claim that it's "like the neighborhood park... [e]veryone wants one, but no one wants to pay for it" is absurd. We see many examples of charitable contributions made by the rich and the middle class which are used to purchase public goods such as museums, nature preserves and the like. When push comes to shove, what Buffet really wants -- and what you are advocating when you say that no matter how much money he donates, it "will not be enough to solve our budget issues" -- is an increase in the size of government fueled by higher taxes, rather than a diminution of its scope by reducing the funds made available to it. A bigger government benefits crony capitalists like Buffet, because they have sufficient power and influence to ensure that the goodies that can be redistributed by the Leviathan are steered their way. I wish Buffet would be honest enough to say that, rather than bloviating about how terrible it is that he doesn't pay enough taxes when he is unwilling to take the obvious direct action necessary to rectify that unfortunate situation.

ryannielsen 15y ago
> Also, the claim that it's "like the neighborhood park... [e]veryone > wants one, but no one wants to pay for it" is absurd. We see many > examples of charitable contributions made by the rich and the middle > class which are used to purchase public goods such as museums, nature > preserves and the like. We also see many cases of governments which have much higher tax rates than ours and provide fantastic public services. > When push comes to shove, what Buffet really wants -- and what you are > advocating when you say that no matter how much money he donates, it > "will not be enough to solve our budget issues" -- is an increase in the > size of government fueled by higher taxes, rather than a diminution of > its scope by reducing the funds made available to it. Being blunt: How do you know what Buffett really wants, or what orijing is really advocating? You've just described how you perceive Buffett's motives and orijing's assertions. And why present this as a "lower taxes vs. smaller government" issue? That seems incredibly disingenuous. What is truly being advocated by many is a combination of both. What's the best way to solve a debt issue? Increase income while also decreasing spending. Why cripple the process by ignoring half the solution? > A bigger government benefits crony capitalists like Buffet, because they > have sufficient power and influence to ensure that the goodies that can > be redistributed by the Leviathan are steered their way. I wish Buffet > would be honest enough to say that, rather than bloviating about how > terrible it is that he doesn't pay enough taxes when he is unwilling to > take the obvious direct action necessary to rectify that unfortunate > situation. What evidence do you have of Buffett benefiting from government programs, or having taken advantage of cronyism? Honest question – he very well may have significantly increased his wealth from connections with other "crony capitalists". I have no evidence either way. That said, do we need to look at past examples of when aggressive government spending has helped individuals or small companies? Once again, this doesn't need to be a black and white world – as the spender of last resort, the government can provide liquidity and resources to individuals, small companies, and large companies when no one else is willing to take the risk. Yes, some people may profit immensely as a result. Does that mean those programs were wrong? And a bigger government doesn't have to only benefit "crony capitalists"... I don't understand why a holistic view is so rarely considered in these discussions. Rather than making this an "right vs. wrong", "rich vs. poor", "liberal vs. conservative", "communist vs. capitalist" argument, let's make it a discussion to find the best solution to our problems. Only then will we actually solve the problems our country faces.

tomjen3 15y ago

The attacks on him is just and fair because he demands the right to take by force other peoples money. The rich already pay the most tax. Why should they pay more?

ryannielsen 15y ago
I honestly don't understand your question. I don't mean that statement to be argumentative – I really don't understand. Are you saying the top 1% should pay what I paid in taxes last year? I paid around $100k. I'm not sure why someone making millions to billions a year should only pay $100k. If you assert I should pay the same as high-income individuals, should someone making far less than I am also pay $100k? To flip it around, if you assert someone making less than me should not pay the same dollar amount as me, then why should someone making many orders of magnitude more than me pay the same dollar amount? Now then, if I assume you're asserting the mega-rich should pay the same percentage as me, then we both agree that Buffett should pay more. My tax rate was 23% while Buffett's was only 17%. How ever you slice it, someone's going to have to pay more than someone else. Either the poor need to pay less since they can't afford the flat dollar rate that's established, or the rich need to pay more because the flat percentage rate means they owe more. Thus, I don't understand your question – it seems logical that, given any taxation system, the rich should pay more. Am I missing something?
- Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
  I think, if you paid £100k in taxes, and you say that was 23% of your income, that puts you well within the 1% you talk about.
  - Ralith 15y ago
    Whether or not he correctly estimated the size of the difference between them, his points stand.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  I was just trying to point out the fact that taxes is one of the few (if not only thing) that is almost always paid as a percentage of income. This messes up how people see taxes and how the burden is distributed. And make people say things like Warren Buffent pays less taxes than I do. You don't buy soldiers, schools, police officers and roads with percentage of incomes. You buy them with dollars, which is why I argue that we should measure the paid tax in dollars and realize that the rich already pay the largest share of it. Since they don't actually use more government services (they properly use less, but that is another matter) I can't see the problem with reducing the amount paid by the highest income earners.

dredmorbius 15y ago

I'll try to help you out a bit. Taxation is Mutual Coercion, Mutually Agreed On. The phrase was used by Dr. Garrett Hardin in his 1968 essay on global overpopulation, "The Tragedy of the Commons". Oh, and the example Hardin explicitly cited as an example of mutual coercion? Taxes: "Who enjoys taxes? We all grumble about them. But we accept compulsory taxes because we recognize that voluntary taxes would favor the conscienceless. We institute and (grumblingly) support taxes and other coercive devices to escape the horror of the commons." http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_... The "just pay voluntary taxes" has been very, very dead for well over 40 years.