[SeekAndFind]

WA PO makes the following disclosure at the top of the article:

Clarification: We should have noted, for disclosure purposes, that Berkshire Hathaway, which Mr. Buffett heads, owns a substantial minority stake in The Washington Post Co. and that Mr. Buffett is a former longtime member of the company’s board of directors.

[facedown]

Gibberish.

[Williams]

1 I have no desire for the wealthy to take their money out of the private economy and give it to the government.

2 Just wondering, can the poor be taxed “fairly”? It astounds me we talk about paying a fair share when 50% pay nothing.

[emax]

Well if it could work then it could create problems for the “anti tax” crowd, if which i am proudly a member. Whose really gonna object to a system where the richest 1 % of Americans get higher taxes and the resulting revenue being used to eliminate debt and give more $$ to health care, education, research funding-NSF grants and what not-and other sources ? Now, I would love taxes as low as possible for everyone in our nation, but how do you convince the other 99 % of Americans that a plan to effectively increase taxes for the top 1 % is a bad thing ?

[10thAmendmentGuy]

Mr. Buffett — like other ultra-rich people who get much of their income from investments — achieves that low rate thanks in part to one of the tax code’s most special favors: The 20-percentage-point gap between the top rate for ordinary income, which is 35 percent, and for capital gains, which is 15 percent.

The reason that investment gains are taxed at a lower rate is because we want to encourage people to invest in the companies that will build the economy. If we were serious about economic growth, we would cut the LTCG rate to 0%, and cut the top marginal income tax rate to 20%, while cutting a whole lot of spending.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

"Taxing the rich fairly can be done — and would raise revenue".

Thing is increasing taxes will only trigger increased spending, the liberals don't want to get the economy under control, they just want more to spend.

All the "fairness" rhetoric is just so much bullshat!

[Yaelle]

Fair = tax everybody. Don’t pay the working poor to not pay taxes.

[Raycpa]

Taxing the rich is merely getting an advance on the death tax. In the long run its going to cost us more. We are long term investors in the assets of the wealthy because of the estate taxes.

If we draw down our share of their wealth now we are reducing our long term investment return. If we assume the wealthy are going to achieve a greater return than the borrowing costs of our debt then long-term we have made a bad financial deal.

[ken21]

let’s raise taxes on those who voted for obama.

[VRWCmember]

All true. But this doesn’t really refute Mr. Buffett, whose main argument — that the burden of deficit-reduction should fall most heavily on the well-to-do — Mr. Golub doesn’t dispute.

No, the burden of deficit-reduction should fall most heavily on those spending the money in the first place. The problem isn't insufficient revenue. The problem is massively excessive spending.

[Osage Orange]

Who is going to spend the money wisely?

Is government going to risk the money in a business to make more money...thus providing jobs?

Or is government going to give that money away...to people they think will vote for them...in the next election?

[Spok]

The rich don’t have enough money to cover the cost of Obama’s vision of America. And there’s no guarantee that Obama or Congress won’t out spend revenue, reagrdless of how much money is brought in. When hundreds of millions and even billions are vanishing and can’t be accounted for, it’s clear that the government’s thirst for wealth cannot be quenched.

[dila813]

There shouldn’t be a deficit in the first place, there shouldn’t be a discussion on who shoulders the deficit because it is an abhorrent abuse of power

[Jim Noble]

15% excise on all concert tickets and movie revenues, 10% wealth tax on all property derived from income due to entertainment 20% surtax on legal services - that’s fair, isn’t it?

[Paradox]

All true. But this doesn’t really refute Mr. Buffett, whose main argument — that the burden of deficit-reduction should fall most heavily on the well-to-do

They already do, and always have. Next stupid point...

[grumpygresh]

Increased taxation reduces individual liberty and the ability of the productive sector to resist tyrannical government. That’s what this is really about. Increased taxes never translate into reduced national debt because either revenues fall or if revenue actually increases, the government will spend the money to maintain their power through racketeering.

[kabar]

We need to get more money from the rich so we can afford the welfare state.

[TexasFreeper2009]

The rich pay plenty, the problem is the poor pay nothing.

when nearly 50% pay no income tax, the system is offically broken.

[Marathoner]

Marxism at its finest. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, Comrade.

[Sudetenland]

Must be nice for Warren Buffet, he’s wealthy enough that he can afford to be a socialist. Problem is, the rest of us poor folks have to suffer the consequences of his advice should anyone be stupid enough to act on it.

[SES1066]

Mr. Buffett — like other ultra-rich people who get much of their income from investments — achieves that low rate thanks in part to one of the tax code’s most special favors: The 20-percentage-point gap between the top rate for ordinary income, which is 35 percent, and for capital gains, which is 15 percent.

What is left out about this one-sided comment is that "Capital Gains" comes from investments into business that is already paying federal tax on THEIR profits, thus (yes there are tax loopholes and exceptions) this income has already been taxed once already!

Me personally, I prefer total replacement by consumption taxes that will capture the more of the underground economy. Before the inter-connected economy, this was impractical but now I would like it IF WE CAN KEEP THE IDIOTS from retaining the IRS and the income tax. [Fat chance! Unfortunately!]