Replies

I think many conservatives believe in the fairness of a flat tax, by which the rich would pay the same rate as someone making $100,000 a year at his job.

Even with a "flat" tax income rate, there most likely will be an exemption on first $30K-$40-$50K (or whatever median income, or close to it, will be at the time) so the bottom 50% of income earners will not have to pay income tax on "earned income" thus still maintaining the highly "progressive structure" of "effective" income tax, though supposedly at a smaller rate and with much smaller number of deductions, if any. Whether any of it is "fair" is left to be decided by the individuals, depending on who is going to be subjected it, but it will be significantly simpler and, hopefully less bureaucratic.

First of all Buffett is a liberal Democrat, which means he is a first-class hypocrite, though he is (like many other very rich Democrats) a first-class investor and is well-spoken advocate for investing and other "causes" in his "folksy" manner.

But exposing this kind of hypocrisy is pretty easy. For instance, he is all for the "estate tax / death tax" yet the government will get almost nothing from his own estate, since it will be transferred to the family foundation, managed by slightly less liberal but about as rich Bill and Melinda Gates.

Same on taxes on the "rich". First, his secretary's taxes include paying disproportionate (relative to the salary) in payroll/Social Security taxes, which is capped and therefore is a miniscule percentage on $39M. Second, his "income" comes not from salary but from capital gains, which are tax-advantaged (as they should be, if not tax-free, because it involves capital risk, and is not a guaranteed "income") so here again he is deliberately omitting the difference in the tax rate structure. In other words, raising a tax bracket for M&Bs would not affect Warren Buffett's capital gains rate in the least next year. But it does endear him (and those like him, e.g., rich Hollywood crowd who call for more taxes on the rich, while investing their own money with Madoff and other privileged and/or tax-advantaged hedge funds or off-shore) to the hoi polloi and the "great unwashed" who represent the mass of Democratic voters.

That said, it's also easy to point out that his "revenue" math doesn't work either, even under his "best case" scenario:

From Warren Buffett's Tax-Hike Proposal Is Mistaken - Buffett's Blunder on Taxes - B, by Gene Epstein, 2011 August 20

Boosting taxes on the super-rich has its sound-bite appeal, but a look at the numbers tells us it would barely make a dent in our debt.
When billionaire investor Warren Buffett speaks, people tend to listen. So when the Oracle of Omaha called last week for drastic tax hikes on earners like him, President Obama cheered, and the rest of us at least took notice. ..... < snip >
..... Unfortunately, Buffett didn't bother to estimate either how much his tax proposal could generate in revenues, or the real multi-trillion-dollar dimensions of the federal debt problem. By remaining vague on both counts, he leaves the impression that a bigger tax contribution from the superrich can make a significant difference, when in fact, we might be lucky if it added five cents on the dollar. ..... < snip >
..... The Barron's tax proposal echoed Obama's: Raise rates on the two top income brackets and boost estate taxes. It was therefore more ambitious than Buffett's, which would hike taxes only on those earning a million dollars a year or more.
But while never saying so explicitly, Buffett did appear to recognize that most of the heavy lifting must therefore come from spending cuts. ..... < snip >
..... In a follow-up article to Buffett's, the New York Times estimated that Buffett's proposal would raise about $500 billion in extra revenue over 10 years. That means the proposal would roughly make a mere 6.6% contribution to that $7.6 trillion goal.
What's more, even that $500 billion revenue estimate could be way too high. Anyone reading Buffett's article would get the impression that an altered tax structure does not alter behavior. ("People invest to make money," he declares, "and potential taxes have never scared them off.") ..... < snip >
Research has shown that the 2003 tax cut on dividends induced corporations to make more dividends available to shareholders. Might a tax hike - to 50% on dividends taken by Buffett's million-dollar-plus earners - cause that policy to go in reverse? And at that 50% rate, might many of the very rich forgo stock purchases and start channeling funds into tax-free municipal bonds and other tax-sheltered vehicles?
The super-rich can contribute their pennies. The real dollars will come from spending cuts.

When the numbers are on your side, it's easy to call the hypocrites on their "vague" assumptions and conjectures, which have no basis in real life. Just need to have the facts and the right lexicon in your arsenal.

And Warren Buffet was called on it, by none other than Arthur Laffer:
Buffett a Hypocrite for Seeking Tax on Ultra-Rich: Laffer - CNBC, by Margo D. Beller, 2011 August 18

The creator of the Laffer curve called Warren Buffett a hypocrite for urging lawmakers to raise taxes on the super-rich to cut the budget deficit.
"The hypocrisy of Warren Buffett is unfathomable," Arthur Laffer, chairman of Laffer Associates, told CNBC Thursday, referring to the Berkshire Hathaway chairman.
"If he really wanted to make (the tax code) fair, why doesn't he propose a wealth tax on everyone over $1 billion worth of wealth of 50 percent once and for all," Laffer said. "That would really work for him, but of course he's not going to suggest that because he would have to pay that."
Laffer said most of Buffett's wealth is in unrealized capital gains. "It's never seen a tax, and when he gives (the investments) to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it never will. This is ridiculous," he said. ..... < snip >

Just the facts, ma'am. That will expose them to the sunlight of reality.