Warren Buffet has come under considerable criticism this week for his notion that the rich should pay more in taxes in this country. One popular critique from the conservatives: Why doesn’t Buffet just pay more himself and leave the rest of the put-upon wealthy Americans alone?
The Arizona Republic chimed on that very point today in an editorial that cleverly tries to outwit Buffet:
In fact, Buffett could pay whatever he wants to pay right now. There is nothing prohibiting him from adding as much as he wants to his check to the IRS. He says the 17.4 percent rate he pays on his taxable income, which realized under $7 million in taxes, is far below the 33-41 percent rate paid by the 20 other people working in his office.
That’s a serious guilt burden Buffett shouldn’t have to endure. By effectively taxing himself, on behalf of everyone in his office, he could solve that problem tomorrow.
Former Reagan administration official Bruce Bartlett explains why that’s an argument unworthy of the state’s largest newspaper:
On Monday, financier Warren Buffett ignited a tax debate by recommending a tax increase on the super-rich. The reaction by some Republicans and others has been that if Mr. Buffett wants to pay more, he should simply write a check to the Treasury Department and send it to Washington. While such a sound-bite response may go over well on Fox News, it is a completely unserious response to the point he made.
In the same column, Bartlett offers real analysis as opposed to silly taunting:
So where is the data supporting the argument that taxes on the rich are the sine qua non of growth? I don’t see it. On the contrary, the data from the last several decades would in fact support the opposite conclusion — that higher tax rates on the wealthy stimulate growth. It is worth remembering that throughout most of Ronald Reagan’s presidency the top rate was 50 percent, and Republicans believe his economic policies are the gold standard that we should try to emulate in every way possible.
The entire thing is worth a read, unless you already have your mind made up that higher taxes automatically kills jobs and destroys America, but here’s the final takeaway:
The obvious compromise is for those like Mr. Buffett who believe that the top rate should be increased, for both financial and distributional reasons, to make clear that they are talking only about people who really are rich. The top rate ought to stay at 35 percent for those in the $370,000 to $1 million income range. But those making $1 million can easily afford to pay 40 percent, which was the top rate in the 1990s, and those making $10 million annually could pay 50 percent, the top rate under the Reagan administration.
Given our budgetary situation, it is irresponsible to keep higher revenues completely off the table, as Republicans insist. And their dogmatic belief that low taxes on the rich are the key to growth is transparent nonsense. But it’s reasonable for the modestly well to do to fear being treated like millionaires when there is talk of raising taxes on the rich. Higher tax rates on the rich should apply only to those who really are rich.
This article appears in Aug 18-24, 2011.
I am already paying my taxes. however if you recall bush absolutly promised the american people the tax cuts were temporary . so whats the big deal keep your word big money
There should be a tax on the lazy and stupid.
The government is here to serve us, we’re not here to serve the government.
Wealth Confiscation (taxes) didn’t work for Ferdinand and Isabella, their
country suffered because of it. It’s time to have a freeze on government
hiring, and a reduction in the rules that are strangling the jobs creating
private sector that has been so much demonized by the current radical
craze that has confused the general public.
An offer in compromise is the most common settlement method individuals think about when it comes to settling with the IRS. Not only is this the most thought of method, but also the hardest one to qualify for but “Free Tax Settlement” advisers can help make it possible.
How much tax doe’s BILLIONAIRE (and traitor) John(lemme park my yacht for free)Kerry pay? Friggin HYPOCRIES!
Oh good lord…. As I strive to remain teachable I have yet to be convinced that or able to clearly see where Mr. Herbert Hoovers’ supply side economics (Sorry, President Ronnie arrived a tad late with a previous presidents pet theory of passing the tax intake cash down from top to bottom) has accomplished a single corrective function. Back up any discussions with hard facts only please. John Kerry a traitor? Gee, that must have been another U.S. Navy Lt. John Kerry that we saw from our aircraft and heard on the radio directing friendly fire just off his position and taking an awful lot of heavy V.C./N.V.A. incoming fire in the process. Obviously a tax dodger and traitor. And I do wonder if anyone has actual physical proof that John Kerry tried to to park his yacht for free under a tree ? I must be a real sinner for parking my sail boat at the Navy Non-Appropriated Funds Yacht Club in Coronado, Ca. Maybe Lt. Kerry is authorized to park his yacht in another Non-Appropriated Fund parking lot under similar circumstances. I do not know and lacking proof of such an endeavor I decline to assign blame for that which appears to be bothering others. Forty years ago I started basing the use of proven “facts” as the only basis of determining weather or not the actual “truth” is present in any contested discussion. Facts do not flow at the rate of 100% from any media outlet be it Fox News, NBC or CBS. The BBC comes real close to only working with proven facts and it is a shame that the Christian Science Monitor is no longer around in its past formats. Keep right on trucking along with all of the unsubstantiated rumors and the country will be doubly hard to repair in the future. J.R.
“…under Roosevelt the threshold increased to $5 million per year – almost $80 million in today’s dollars. “
How about that as a compromise raise the top rate for anyone making over $80 million per year. Somehow I doubt the Dems would go for it. No they’re after people making far less, they say over a million, but then “revise” that to over $250,000.