Posted on 11/25/2007 5:02:22 AM PST by Kaslin
Is it possible that I’m smarter than Warren Buffett?
Well, not likely. There’s so much evidence to the contrary, at least of the "if you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?" kind.
But, on my side, I didn’t let myself be interviewed by Tom Brokaw and say that I should be taxed at a higher rate. Buffett compared the federal taxes he pays to the taxes his office workers pay. Relating these tax amounts to the respective incomes, he then figured rates:
Mine came to — 17.7 percent. The average for the office was 32.9 percent. There wasn’t anybody in the office, from the receptionist on, that paid as low a tax rate. And I have no tax planning, I don’t have an accountant, I don’t have tax shelters. I just follow what the U.S. Congress tells me to do.
Brokaw immediately eggs Buffett on, asking about why there’s no outrage about this. Buffett is philosophic:
. . . I think what people don’t realize is that almost one third of the entire budget comes from payroll taxes. And payroll taxes on income, just like income taxes are taxes on income.What Warren Buffett has done, of course, is lump Social Security contributions (payroll taxes) with the federal income tax. Then, he complains (so to speak) that his Social Security taxes aren’t high enough. His claim makes no sense if Social Security taxes are excluded. Considering the basic federal income tax only, he pays at a higher rate than his assistants. Far more.
But he lumps the two together for a specific set of purposes. And we can expect to hear a lot more of this kind of talk as the days of Social Security insolvency come nearer. What is not being made clear by Mr. Buffett, nor the myriad other Democrats who make this pitch, is what a revolution they are proposing in the very concept of Social Security. And what they are sweeping under the rug.
You see, Social Security is indeed a tax — it is a forced expropriation of wealth from individuals to government. But it is a tax designed to support a safety net pension program. It was not designed to fund highways or rockets or indoor rain forests.
Further, from the very beginning, Social Security mimicked in a few crucial ways private pension accounts. The more you contributed, the more you got out of it. Even as the first few recipients of its largesse gained thousands and thousands off of meager contributions, that feature was well-ensconced into the fabric of the system.
So, a professional restaurateur making a hundred thou per year would have higher contributions to the system than a minimum wage fry cook; at retirement, that fry cook would take much less home than the richer restaurateur.
Is this unfair? Well, Karl Marx might say yes, but it’s just life. The more you have, the more you can save. The more you’ve saved and invested, the more you can reclaim later in life, at retirement. Social Security did not set out to equalize incomes in America, just narrow them at retirement, providing a floor of poverty below which it would be hard to sink.
The trouble, of course, is that the system was not run like a modified tontine, with invested funds then shared by the narrowed ranks of the longest lived. It has been a pay in, pay out system, without investment. Well, other than the “investments” made by giving the surplus funds to Congress to spend. (The money thus turned into IOUs, which only meant that future taxpayers would have to pay future Social Security retirees by increased federal taxes.)
What most of us non-rich folk may forget (as Warren rightly remarks) is that, after $102,000 of income, the government stops taking out FICA withholding, which is the lion’s share of the payroll tax. That’s because, as the government rightly figures, after one has paid for one’s contributions to a pension system, one reserves one’s income for other things.
Mr. Buffet’s incredulity notwithstanding, it should not be shocking to discover that the richer person spends a lower percentage of his or her income on necessities like food, transportation, health insurance — and retirement — than does the poorer person. That’s yet another reason why we’d all prefer to be rich.
But better than being rich is being independent. That’s what is at stake here.
If individual Americans were able to own their own Social Security accounts, its basic features could be provided not by expropriated funds (taxes), but by invested funds. And, after you’ve paid for your safety net pension, and then your main pension or retirement nest-egg, you expect, as you get richer, to pay less of a percentage of your income toward pensions.
I mean, rich people don’t really need pensions. If they hit a cash flow crunch, they simply sell off some of their accumulated assets. The reason we common folk need pensions is that we haven’t accumulated enough assets. Indeed, our pension funds are there to act as our accumulated assets, invested specifically for the one purpose: retirement.
What Warren Buffett proposes, apparently, is to remove the cut-off point, and extend the FICA tax. In Buffett’s case, to his entire $66 million a year in income. Though, Buffett clearly expects no commensurate increase in his Social Security benefits upon retirement (and might be shocked were anyone to suggest it).
Buffett’s idea would, on paper, “save the Social Security System.” But it would be a monumental tax increase, the side-effects of which would likely be disastrous.
What such a move would do is transform the system from a mimicry of private pensions to a straight welfare program, taking from richer people and giving to the poorer. Any pretense that the Social Security System was one of paying our own way would go out the window.
And, under the rug, nestled like the wisest of serpents, would be the one thing not necessary to ever mention again: the fact that, for two thirds of a century, our so-called representatives of both parties squandered our retirement nest egg, our “safety net,” with no thought for the future.
They would be saved by the rich.
The founders of SS knew from the beginning that it would inevitably morph into what it has become, it was never anything but a ponzi scheme.
I beg to differ with the author of this article. What Warren Buffett has done is no different than what Congress itself has done for years (since 1969, I believe) -- i.e., treat payroll taxes as no different than other sources of tax revenue in Federal budget calculations.
This isn't to suggest that Buffett is right when he claims that "rich people" should be paying more taxes in this country. In fact, the guy is an opporunistic fraud who would probably NEVER end up paying effective tax rates as high as his employees' tax rates -- no matter how the tax code changes.
Did Brokaw ask Buffett to take out his check book and make out a check to the revenuer of his choice for that amount he thinks he underpaid over the years?
And just think, if Warren so seriously thinks the government needs more of his money, he could send them some money any time he wanted to do so. It’s not like he’s running low on the stuff.
Ponzi did jail time for his scheme, yet Roosevelt is revered as the one of the greatest presidents.
This has always been my point, too. I teach in a university and there always there bleeding heart liberals who say we need to give more to the poor, provide more opportunities, health care is a right, blah, blah, blah. I finally said: "The rich support charities, invest, create new businesses and jobs, create sources of capital, plus hundreds of other good things for society. Now, what are the things poor people do for society other than suck down the resource pool?"
If you want to help the poor, fine. Write them a check, but don't force me to do it. I'll help someone, but only if they first demonstrate that they will help themselves.
I believe the first recipient of an SS check had paid less than $21 into the system, but over the rest of her life, collected over $20,000.
And of course Warren has shifted most of his fortune to the Gates Foundation -- why? To avoid the effects of the "Death Tax" which threatens to loom its ugly head soon. But why is Warren in favor of seeing the Death Tax reinstated? Because Berkshire Hathaway is an insurance company whose primary business over the years has been selling life insurance to the wealthy in order to pay the Death Tax!
Did Brokaw bring up any of these unpleasant issues? Did Congress inquire about any of these minor points of conflict of interest?
The guy is a flaming fraud since absolutely NOTHING prevents him from cutting a check to the United States Treasury for the additional tax he thinks he should be paying. Buffet knows that and the fact that he has not done so every years makes a LIAR out of him.
That is a GREAT POINT!
“Ponzi did jail time for his scheme, yet Roosevelt is revered as the one of the greatest presidents.”
I take great exception to the second part of that sentence. FDR was an avowed Socialist , bent on changing Capitalism into Communism.
He also was an abject failure in ending the Depression. After eight years in office, unemployment was HIGHER than the first year. If not for Pearl Harbor (which some claim he instigated, or at least knew about), he might have been defeated for a fourth term.
You just can’t trust the RATS - none of them.
He is indeed a fraud. What prevents him to write an extra check to the IRS. But like a typical liberal he wants everyone to pay higher taxes
And, another scheme, one can transfer funds to a beneficiary who would then buy a life insurance policy on his patron. When the patron died, the life insurance payout would not be taxed at all.
Marginal tax rates for the highest income brackets during the 1950s topped out at over 90%. Note, the US economy during the 1950s grew at an abysmal rate. The reason....there was no incentive to invest as any significant gains would have been taxed away and for the wealthy their after tax income didn’t allow them to either save or invest. To his credit JFK succeeded on reducing these rates to about 77% in 1963 and started an economic boom.
His works programs and deficit spending are proven to have lengthened the depression and in many was deepened it. Threatening to pack the SCOTUS with more liberal judges in order to get his socialist paradise going. His Ponzi Scheme known as Socialist Stupidity continues to fleece its victims.
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are the biggest judas goat, pied pipers of confiscatory taxes on earth.
The Whoreacle of Omaha continues to show his elite liberalism.
If he and Gates feel so guilty about their massive fortunes, they should give all of to the Salvation Army and go to work in their local Salvation Army to feed and clothe the poor.
A picture of Billy and the whoreacle ringing the bell?
PRICELESS
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.