Somebody needs to get this guy the fucking memo!
Buffett, one of the world’s richest men and now its biggest philanthropist, has been an outspoken critic of efforts to repeal the estate tax and is scheduled to testify at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on how current law affects estate tax planning.
Who the hell does this guy think he is? Doesn’t he know it’s his money even when he is dead? What a total moron!
Tags: Poking Fun, Politics
It bothers him that he pays less in taxes than his secretary.
How un-American.
He pays less Social Security tax than does his secretary because rather than a salary, he earns his money through dividends and capital gains, both of which are taxed at a lower percentage, and neither of which are subject to the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. (Kind of like John Edwards ducking half a million in Medicare taxes by forming an “S” corporation, then advocating higher taxes on the rest of us.)
Of course, he has deliberately organized his finances thus, so I doubt it bothers him too much.
And if he wishes to leave his entire estate to the government, more power to him — but leave the rest of us alone.
It does bother him Dana. He actually he is on a campaign about it Dana, so you are wrong (again).
the did a piece on NBC about it…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3z_UrOKtjHk
Repubs get all bent out of shape when someone who should be their natural constituent betrays the club rules.
They don’t know how to handle it.
Indeed. The Republican Party’s opposition to the Estate Tax reveals that their slogan “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps” is just a lie. God forbid their trust fund constituency actually has to work for a living like the rest of us.
In fact, if he volunteered to actually SELL a share of BH he would pay taxes. Till then, he is saying bugger off my money.
I know pot shots at the GOP are common place but the Estate Tax violates a simple concept-income should be taxed once and only once regardless of wealth.
My support to stop taxing people upon death has everything to do with fairness than party affiliation. Anyone who feels they are not taxed enough can donate extra $$$.
The irony is all in this phrase.
“Buffett, one of the world’s richest men and now its biggest philanthropist”
He trusts charities more with his money than he does the government, so he’s giving it all away before he dies.
Best thing would be to read what Warren Buffet thinks about our political situation.
Ah, but Mike, this is where you Republicans fudge the issue. The Estate Tax is not an income tax. If it were, your argument about double taxation would have some merit.
However, the Estate Tax is a transfer tax. A tax on the transfer of property from the deceased to those inheriting it by will or by intestacy. It is not an income tax
The estate tax is another fine example of how the R’s twist language to suit their needs. Calling it a death tax makes it sound like all of us are getting hit with it. The exemption for the estate tax is over a million dollars (in 2009, it was to go to 3.5 mil).
If I win the lottery, all of the money that I win was taxed when paid to the other players, taxed by the lottery itself and then taxed when given to me. The genetic lottery should be no different. This double taxation is a line of BS.
If you made a billion dollars in the widget business, great. Your kids can have a nice chunk of it, but some of it should go to the government that provided the support for your business endeavors (roads, education, security, stability, etc.).
I love this discussion.
god willing you won’t be elected Protack.
When you die how is it still your money? you are lucky the govt doesn’t take it all back. After all they are the ones printing it.
“I know pot shots at the GOP are common place but the Estate Tax violates a simple concept-income should be taxed once and only once regardless of wealth.”
The dead person was taxed once for the money, when he/she was alive. The new income going to the heirs needs to be taxed in keeping w/ the principle “income should be taxed once and only once.”
Dana is right. That argument is BS. What I dont get is how eager working class conservatives are to carry water for billionaires.
They believe bumper stickers.
As long as those mealy-mouthed conservatives can quote scripture, the middle-class conservatives will continue sending votes their way.
Tom Paine had answer for for the scripture quoters from his article Biblical Blasphmey and to the whole religous right. Putting forth reason he opposed everything in religion; what I’ve always felt he missed was that reason and religion can go together- but I seriously doubt any hyperbolye laden status quo seekers would like Tom Paine. One gem will suffice:
“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”
What a way to get votes, Mr. Pat Robertson. Loved your endorsement…it proves my case more eloquently then I ever could. All Dems-Go out and read Tom Paine; you’ll love him he’ll give your arguements about reason toughness.
“What I dont get is how eager working class conservatives are to carry water for billionaires.”
The deal is the billionaires will fund the party that will keep the homosexuals from getting married, the Mexicans behind a fence that will stretch in equivalent length from Wilmington to Chicago, and knocked-up poor teenage girls from getting abortions as long as they, the billionaires, keep as much loot as they can as well as raid the US Treasury.
I still can’t get over that someone I know well inherited huge bucks, gets about $150-200,000 per annum in dividend income and my wife and I pay a higher rate of income tax than his 15%. That is bizarre.
<I still can’t get over that someone I know well inherited huge bucks, gets about $150-200,000 per annum in dividend income and my wife and I pay a higher rate of income tax than his 15%.
To add insult to injury, Republicans will say your rich friend pays “more taxes” than you.
“Tom Paine”
He is my favorite founding father.
Donviti wrote:
Really? Then he is perfectly free to restructure his income so that he owes more in taxes, or voluntarily contribute a few hundred million to the US Treasury. Until he does that, whining that he doesn’t pay as much in Social Security and Medicare taxes as his secretary is just hypocrisy.
I’m sure you are well aware of definition of hypocrisy aren’t you Dana?
Yes, I am, and hypocrisy would include combitching that your taxes are too low when you have structured your income to keep your taxes low!
how exactly did he structure income from investments to keep his taxes low Dana?
didn’t George Bush do that for him?
I’m pretty sure he doesn’t pay himself a salary from his company
“Then he is perfectly free to restructure his income so that he owes more in taxes, or voluntarily contribute a few hundred million to the US Treasury.”
Even on the assumption, which I don’t share, he’s a hypocrite, that doesn’t negate his point or arguments. Hypocrites can make compelling claims & arguments just like the sincere.
Besides, it’s hardly a good counterargument for you to say that the USA’s tax **policy** shouldn’t change because one very wealthy man is a hypocrite and could feed more into the treasury but doesn’t.
come on dana…it’s the standard attack the messenger tactic
A person’s estate does not grow or thrive based on random events, it happens because of an individual’s personal effort. As that individual earns income to build their estate that income is taxed. It should not be taxed again in any way.
I hear the thoughts on how wealthy folks get over on the system. I agree that the tax system is broken as we have more people employed monitoring and implementing the tax system than we do making autos in America. However, if someone else makes a lot money that doesn’t in any way inhibit my ability to earn an income so I don’t feel the need to punish them with more taxes.
Hi Protack- right, but more importantly you must allow the people the right to vote to tax themsevles for their own needs even if it is only represenative- to get there you need to level up the playing field….that is to give the representives in the legislature a true idea of what the people think. Rather than impose taxes from above which is what people do not like- allow the people to choose how to tax from below guided by reason. This tax should include a re-appraisal of the corporate charters of businesses who can legilmately be taxed and controlled for the public good.
If you give the people the power they will agree to tax themselves if they do not have good roads, schools, care for the poor etc…then the system can be voted on by the legislature to make sure it works for the common good, monitored both by the legislature and the executive branch without overspending and with audit controls.
“However, if someone else makes a lot money that doesn’t in any way inhibit my ability to earn an income so I don’t feel the need to punish them with more taxes.”
Why don’t you get this, Mike? It’s impossible to punish a dead man w/ more taxes because–well, he’s dead.
But when his money gets transferred to someone else, it becomes that person’s INCOME. We tax income in the US.
But when his money gets transferred to someone else, it becomes that person’s INCOME. We tax income in the US.
I agree with this line of thinking, but the other half of the justification for the estate tax is the prevention of an entrenched aristocracy.
“but the other half of the justification for the estate tax is the prevention of an entrenched aristocracy.”
there! someone actually gets it.
no shit!@
So I guess Protack for Governor you are ok with wealth being passed on and controlled by the same families forever?
how do people get ahead in this country that way?
I am glad you finally framed the debate the right way. Now how to cap taxes on it? What would the limit be?
I say the same as earned income – progressive scale…..
…I think most of us, D or R, Lib or Con, are sick of the 500lb gorilla of welfare for the wealthy.
Von, with all due respect, this assumes we have a progressive scale and system of taxation. This is not always the case….
Corporate socialism is a form of national socialism in that it is the merger between the political and business elite…. subsides make it possible for top leaders to enact public private partnerships, these are not found anywhere in the state constitution. And serve the interests of a minority though they may offer some good for some people, they are largely uncontrolled. How do you deal with that?
Constitutionally the one area that government does have the right to tax, regulate and control is the corporate enterprise. Why have we not done this?
Corporate socialism is a powerful, secductive and dangerous threat to Liberty. It creates a radical ideology of party or leader obedience, and the obvedience to the common good of all citizens as being equal made by their creator with fundemental and inalienable rights is not even a second thought. So how do you address that?
It is not represented in the general welfare clause or the common good clause…. so how do you deal with that?
should’ve been clearer…it’s what I wish it to be, not saying what it is now…
Von, thanks…wishes become reality when we do something about them…reallly,though, if you want it to change, get as many people as you can together, use reason and start to change it. I am too sick to do it, I am sorry, I wish I was not. but would be happy to provide you advice on how to make these kinds of changes happen. A good first step is to call all of our county and state reps. and senators for a bipartisan roundtable meeting.