The article total ignores the double taxation issue. Corporations pay a 35% tax rate. The remaining profits are sent out as dividends or retained, driving up share price. There is a further tax on that gain. So Mr. Buffet is paying, actually a much higher rate than he claims. It may seem fare to raise taxes on capital providers, doing so though will reduce the amount of available capital.
I disagree with you on a few points:
Very few, if any corporations pay anything near the 35% rate. Many pay little if any tax at all.
I am retired and live off the returns from stock mutual funds. The taxes on the corporations whose stock I own does indirectly effect my return, but I still get a good return. If the taxes on that return were higher it would not keep me from investing. I think this is true of most investors.
Double taxation exists everywhere, not just on the returns from stocks. For example I pay income tax, then buy something and pay sales tax. I could list lots of examples but I am sure you see my point.
“The article total ignores the double taxation issue.”
So does all of the mainstream media. The apparent counterintuitivity of Buffet’s secretarial anecdote is too juicy to pass up, no matter how misleading.
Hey, you know what? If it seems odd that Buffet is taxed less than his secretary, he’s probably not taxed less than his secretary, you boob.