Posted on 11/14/2007 10:48:28 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Warren Buffett: Tax inherited estates
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 11 minutes ago
Billionaire Warren Buffett told the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday that Congress should keep the estate tax rather than repeal it and help a few rich Americans like him.
"I think we need to ... take a little more out of the hides of guys like me," Buffett told the panel.
One of the world's richest men and biggest philanthropists, Buffett has been outspoken against efforts, mostly by Republicans, to repeal or reduce the federal tax on inheritances. Democrats argue that a repeal would amount to a huge windfall for the nation's wealthiest families.
The fate of the levy will effectively be decided during next year's presidential and congressional elections.
Estates worth up to $2 million this year and next will be exempt from the federal estate tax. Portions of estates above that threshold will be taxed at 45 percent.
In 2009, the exemption level rises to $3.5 million, and by 2010 the estate tax will be repealed — but only for a year.
Unless Congress changes the law, it comes roaring back in 2011 with an exemption threshold of only $1 million and a top tax rate of 55 percent.
Buffett said inheritance taxes preserve a measure of meritocracy, and with it opportunity, by recycling portions of great wealth through public coffers.
"The resources of society I don't think should pass along in terms of an aristocratic dynasty of wealth," Buffett told the panel. "I believe in keeping equality of opportunity as much as you can in this country."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“A lot of rich people got to be rich by cheating”
I don’t agree with most of Warren Buffet’s politics, but his reputation for honesty is so far unblemished. He’s just a fantastically talented investor and manager.
There are other super-rich people I couldn’t say that about.
Buffett...the hick version of Soros (not that there is anything wrong with hicks)
Congress, largely a collection of slimy, celebrity worshiping, corrupt asswipes, ready to take all you have to line their pockets and feather their nests.
Then family farms can incorporate. It’s not that difficult to figure out.
Buffett is awfully happy advocating the seizure of other people’s wealth.
That money and property in an estate has already been taxed. Why should it be taxed when it is inherited?
“That money and property in an estate has already been taxed. Why should it be taxed when it is inherited?”
The money I earn is already taxed by FICA taxes, so why should the same earnings be taxed by income taxes?
And then when I spend what income is left it is taxed again by sales taxes.
And if I use that already-taxed money to buy a house it is taxed again by real estate taxes.
Someone has to pay taxes, and dead people mind it the least.
So unless you insist on raising the income tax enough so that the super-rich can pass on their estates tax free, we need the revenue from the estate tax. I think a much higher deductible of at least $10 million, indexed to inflation, is the best compromise. And also lower the maximum estate tax bracket so it is no higher than the maximum income tax bracket.
Spoken like a true thief.
Exactly
What they need to do is lift of the burden of the estate tax from family businesses. That would clear up a lot of the confusion and hatred of it.
“Spoken like a true thief.”
No more than you, who presumably prefer to tax my income, purchases, and dwelling. Someone will always be taxed on something! Using inflammatory language doesn’t prove anything but bad manners.
Tax estates? How bout we just lock up traitors and take everything they own. POS typical POS.
Look newby, I don’t want folks like you taxing the crap from my dogs. Leave us the hell alone. We work and are enslaved by salivating dogs with a collective IQ of 3.
“What they need to do is lift of the burden of the estate tax from family businesses.”
I agree with you, which is why I advocate a deductible of $10 million or more. And I can’t see any rationale for making the estate tax bracket higher than the maximum income tax bracket.
But the bottom line is the government needs revenue from somewhere. Eliminating the estate tax completely clearly implies raising other taxes.
In the current political environment, taxes aren't an either or. They're an and. They aren't going to give it back in a cut of another tax, they are going to see a surplus and spend it.
"we need" are weasel words. The truth is "they want".
I posted the following on another thread on the “War Tax”. Talking about how dems want a larger slice of the pie, while Republicans want a larger pie. More tax revenue doesn’t mean more taxes:
A google search came up with President Bush’s speech in New Hampshire regarding the 2007 budget. A great speech with good economic news spoken in simple terms so I can understand it! It’s on the Whitehouse website. A short excerpt:
“One of the interesting things that I hope you realize when it comes to cutting taxes is this tax relief not only has helped our economy, but it’s helped the federal budget. In 2004, tax revenues to the Treasury grew about 5.5 percent. That’s kind of counter-intuitive, isn’t it? At least it is for some in Washington.
You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase. See, some people are going to say, well, you cut taxes, you’re going to have less revenue. No, that’s not what happened. What happened was we cut taxes and in 2004, revenues increased 5.5 percent.
And last year those revenues increased 14.5 percent, or $274 billion. And the reason why is cutting taxes caused the economy to grow, and as the economy grows there is more revenue generated in the private sector, which yields more tax revenues.”
But the bottom line is the government needs revenue from somewhere. Eliminating the estate tax completely clearly implies raising other taxes.
Yep. However, I’m not as optimistic as you on the subject. I’ve come to believe that taxes are going to have to be raised, it’s just a matter of how much.
A) The middleclass is getting to the point where it’s pretty much tapped and raising taxes in any significant way could push a significant number of people over the edge.
B) Folks forget what Buffett’s specialty is, which is estimating the value of a thing. And he’s darned good at it. So, if he says the gubmint needs to raise taxes, then I’ll find the alternative of not raising taxes a little scary.
Ever heard of spending cuts???
I’m entirely in favor of getting rid of as much government as possible. I’ve been down at the town hall where I live night after night haranguing the town council for spending too much, and they cringe every time they see me. I’m a Republican, and not in-name-only.
But unfortunately there will always still be taxes. If nothing else, we need to support our armed service personnel who are risking their lives for us, and it takes money. So which taxes do we get rid of first? I’d be in favor of getting rid of the income tax before getting rid of the inheritance tax. Then I’d get rid of property taxes, and then sales taxes, and finally inheritance taxes. If you got rid of the income, property, and sales taxes, then my children might actually have an inheritance to pay tax on! But I’m just dreaming.
It seems that a lot of people here feel strongly that there is something uniquely evil about inheritance taxes, but I haven’t yet heard a logical argument why that is so. There are lots of other forms of double-taxation that very few people get indignant about. Personally, I’d just exempt the first $10 million or more of inheritance so few family businesses are hit; and also keep the rates reasonable so billionaires don’t feel the need to emigrate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.