Posted on 08/24/2011 2:38:56 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
IT HAS BEEN a little over a week since billionaire Warren Buffett called for higher taxes on the richest Americans, and now comes the reaction. Harvey Golub, a former chairman and chief executive of American Express, writes in the Wall Street Journal that he “resents” Mr. Buffett’s suggestion. I already pay plenty of taxes, Mr. Golub asserts, adding: “Before you ‘ask’ for more tax money from me and others, raise the $2.2 trillion you already collect each year more fairly and spend it more wisely.”
Who’s right? Mr. Golub points out that almost half of the population pays no income tax, and that the very top earners — 250,000 Americans who make $1 million or more per year — already pay 20 percent of the total. State income taxes are often quite high, especially in places where the rich cluster, such as New York, New Jersey and California — yet, notes Mr. Golub, Mr. Buffett doesn’t factor that in. The current code is “replete with favors to various interest groups and industries,” as Mr. Golub puts it, from the mortgage-interest deduction to the exemption for employer-paid health benefits. On top of that, the government wastes a lot of money on farm subsidies and duplicative job-training programs.
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. Mr. Buffett acknowledged that higher taxes on the very rich should be part of a deficit-cutting package that also tackles excessive entitlement spending. Unlike Mr. Golub, he noted that lower-income people who don’t pay income taxes do pay substantial payroll taxes, which are less progressive.
More to the point, there’s no contradiction between Mr. Golub’s attack on tax expenditures and Mr. Buffett’s lament,
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It's worse than that, when you consider that many who pay zero taxes also get "refunds".
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?
They already do, and always have. Next stupid point...
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.
We need to get more money from the rich so we can afford the welfare state.
The rich pay plenty, the problem is the poor pay nothing.
when nearly 50% pay no income tax, the system is offically broken.
The very wealthy have already protected their estates from the death tax. They set up Foundations and other protected investments.
I don’t think you stopped to actual read my response.
Marxism at its finest. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, Comrade.
I agree but the public policy reason of deducting such amounts from the estate is that these organizations provide goods and services which benefit all people and also supplement or provide what the government/public would otherwise have to provide. So, yes we are still borrowing from our future wealth when we take from the wealthy.
The problem is the poor have no idea what they are actually paying that is built in the costs of goods they purchase, the rent they pay, the utilities etc. They merely think they have a free ride and that the Dem politician is the one giving it.
Wonder if the Washington compost is sitting on a big pile of cash. Why won’t they start hiring? Bunch of corporate fat cats lighting their cigars with $100 dollar bills.
Ignorant media thinks none of their poo flinging will ever stick to them. Just wait there wapo. Your dear leader will target you also.
Well I noticed you had pointed out that the current crop of politicians we have would not be able to spend any additional revenue responsibly. True enough, but the point is also about the possibility of finding and electing representatives who could ensure that the tax money goes towards such sources as health care and medicare and funding for research and other such purposes.
So I get the point about how our tax dollars right now would not be used responsibly. But that means that we could not effectively tax the richest 1 % right now - and that for many non rich Americans would simply beg the question-what if we could ? A Large numbers of them see higher education , Medicare, quality doctors and drugs being so hard to afford and inevitably will wonder why the obscenely rich, capable of spending money like it’s going out of style, shouldnt be required to use a bulk of their unnecessary wealth to fund these things. I hear endlessly from people I work with as to why public sectors cant get more federal funding and often it leads to why we cant get more funding from the obscenely rich in our nation. I guess I just wish there were more real economists around to explain about how it doesnt really work that way - Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, et al-and could get our news outlets to take decent notes.
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.
The revenue obtained would be very limited, in exchange for disproportionate economic damage. Several articles on it in the conservative mags, ie:
http://www.american.com/archive/2011/august/obamasfollytaxingtherich
Where did you come up with that one? The real reason is that the very wealthy have effectively lobbied Congress to pass laws so that they can shelter their wealth for their progeny. These charitable or other type Foundations use their wealth to employ the survivors as directors and to use their influence around the globe. Gates and Buffet will use lots of their Foundation money overseas. Americans won't benefit from it.
Here! Here!
The issue is the War on Upward Mobility, which is that people earning 1099 income or W2 wages are screwed by all the Government takes.
The people who HAVE ACHIEVED are not taxed on net worth, only gains and income are taxed.
The Liberals and Socialists do not like upward mobility, it creates a company, which COMPETES with their end-all Government, which can never happen.
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.