Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Warren Buffett: Criticism is 'ridiculous' (His point is -- tax code treats his secretary unfairly)
Omaha World Herald ^ | 01/27/2012 | Steve Jordon

Posted on 01/27/2012 11:24:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Warren Buffett's secretary, after being pointed out on national television during Tuesday's State of the Union speech, now is facing criticism over her salary and second home.

Debbie Bosanek and her boss both declined Thursday to disclose how much she's paid, saying it's private.

In an interview with The World-Herald, Buffett also said none of the online guesses about Bosanek's salary is right, and the critics are missing his point.

"I'm saying she is being treated unfairly in the tax code, as are tens of millions of others, compared to me," Buffett said. "They shouldn't change the rates on all the other people. They should change mine."

Buffett stuck to his long-held contention that it's unfair for high-income people to pay low tax rates, such as his own 17.4 percent in 2010, less than half Bosanek's 35.8 percent rate. That rate is for everything Bosanek pays to the federal government — income taxes as well as payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Based on that 35.8 percent tax rate, Forbes blogger Paul Roderick Gregory wrote, "She is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project. I imagine that there are any number of secretaries who would want her job and her place in the Congress gallery for the President's State of the Union address."

Bosanek, he said, is being portrayed as a "downtrodden woman," but he estimated she makes between $200,000 and $500,000 a year, based on his assumptions about average income tax rates. Other Forbes bloggers disputed the figures, saying Buffett was quoted in the Times of London about five years ago saying he pays his secretary $60,000 a year.

Buffett said Gregory "doesn't have any idea, just zero. If I were to estimate his salary, I'd probably be closer than he is." You can't estimate salaries from tax rates, he said.

Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Omaha-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said the issue isn't Bosanek's income, nor is her tax rate unusually high. "They can't attack the facts, so they attack the person. It's ridiculous."

Bosanek said she's not complaining about her salary or the taxes she pays, nor will she apologize for the home she bought last year in Surprise, Ariz., a Phoenix suburb. One blogger announced that she made the purchase "despite a heavy tax burden."

"I just thought it was time to buy a home," she said. "Warren tells me that it will be the best opportunity in my lifetime. Mortgage rates are low and prices have dropped dramatically. Getting a nice home in a great climate for only a $30,000 down payment and a mortgage that has a low interest rate — I've been working 37 years and saving for an opportunity like this.

"I share Warren's view about the future of America, and we believe that our country will do just fine. I'm happy to make this investment.

"Hopefully in 10 years, when I turn 65 and Warren turns 92, I will be able to convince him to finally retire so I can retire, after working 47 years, and spend some time where the sun shines in the winter."

Bosanek, while declining to give her salary, said: "I feel like I'm treated fairly at Berkshire."

She said she is neither the lowest-paid nor the highest-paid person among the 21 employees at Berkshire's Omaha headquarters. Their 2010 tax rates ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent, according to Buffett's calculations.

Bosanek said neither she or Buffett ever implied that she was poor or underpaid.

"It's not like I look forward to paying taxes," she said. "But I don't mind paying taxes as long as everybody's treated fairly. . I'm not saying anyone should feel sorry for me or lower my taxes. I never even thought about it until he wrote the article."

Buffett wrote an article last August in the New York Times, calling on Congress to change the tax code so high-income people pay at least as much as middle-income taxpayers and using his secretary as an example.

Obama proposed just such a tax change, calling it the "Buffett rule" and emphasized it in his address on Tuesday by inviting Bosanek to sit in the first lady's box during the speech.

"They needed to pick one person, and I was the lucky person they picked, or unlucky," Bosanek said Thursday.

She said she and her husband, Jerry, looked at houses last June when they took their son, also named Jerry, to visit at the University of Northern Arizona campus in Flagstaff, where he is now a freshman. Her husband drives vans and other vehicles for a company that delivers air freight from Eppley Airfield to destinations in the Midwest. Her father was an Omaha firefighter.

The Bosaneks bought the four-bedroom house in Surprise last summer for $144,000, making a $30,000 down payment and taking out a mortgage on the rest.

In Bellevue, the Bosaneks live in a slightly larger house southeast of South 25th Street and Fairview Road, close to the Tregaron Golf Course. They bought it in 1999, paying $231,274. The tax value is now $217,716.

The Surprise house has a pool, as do many others in the area, and the side yard has an artificial turf putting green with four holes, which was installed before the Bosaneks looked at the house. They spent Thanksgiving weekend there.

"We just had a ball. It was very special for us," Bosanek said, giving their son a break from campus life and staying in their own house and not a hotel.

Bosanek said she is not used to being in the public eye but doesn't mind being used as an example because she agrees with Buffett's views on taxes.

"I'm not whining. I just want to set the record straight," she said. "I'm very lucky. I've got a wonderful job. I work for a wonderful person. I have a wonderful family, and I have a wonderful home in Bellevue and I've got this wonderful new home that, hopefully, I'll be able to pay off someday."

-- The Omaha World-Herald Co. is owned by Berkshire Hathaway.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: secretary; taxcode; taxes; warrenbuffet; warrenbuffett

1 posted on 01/27/2012 11:24:06 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Instead of raising taxes on millionaires, why not lower the taxes on the rest of us?


2 posted on 01/27/2012 11:29:07 AM PST by Veggie Todd (I don't mind you hitting me, Frank, but take it easy on the Bacardi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

—His point is — tax code treats his secretary unfairly—

Message to Warren: Yeah, we get that. We just disagree with you.


3 posted on 01/27/2012 11:30:10 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So instead of jacking up the rates on those who are prosperous, how about reducing the rates for people like his secretary. What is a fair rate ? A simple flat 10 or 15 % In fact 10% is a very fair number. It is good enough for God, it is more than good enough for the gov’t. Flat tax with no deductions except a certain exemption of income before tax is applied. Throw out the whole complex tax code and it would be a simple sheet of paper.

Taxes should be for revenue, not for social engineering.


4 posted on 01/27/2012 11:33:01 AM PST by CORedneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Hussein and Buffett can criticize and use a lower level employee (whom Buffett could assist financially in any way he likes) as a prop, but when SOMEONE ELSE decides to analyze the fact that she owns two homes and likely makes up to $500,000 a year, well that is (ACCORDING TO HUSSEIN AND BUFFETT APPARENTLY) “ridiculous”, eh?

Got hypocrisy?


5 posted on 01/27/2012 11:36:08 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Hey Warren what would you do if Obozo put a 30% tax on all your income regardless of its source? Would you be making investments that entail risk knowing that 30% of whatever you made in capital gains would be taxed at 30% on top of the 33% federal corporate income tax that comes right off the top of a company’s profits? My bet is Buffet would be moving his money offshore in short order.


6 posted on 01/27/2012 11:37:18 AM PST by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

He isn’t opposed to eliminating loop holes.


7 posted on 01/27/2012 11:37:45 AM PST by fml
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Recovering_Democrat — you have it exactly right. Add to that the fact that Buffett and his organization owes a billion in back taxes and is fighting it and Buffett becomes the ultimate hypocrite. But then, what else do you expect, he is a democrat


8 posted on 01/27/2012 11:48:56 AM PST by falcon99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

i wonder if their son will get in-state tuition since mom and pop bought their 2nd house there in Arizona?


9 posted on 01/27/2012 11:48:56 AM PST by IWONDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Blowback is a bitch, ain’t it Warren.


10 posted on 01/27/2012 11:53:08 AM PST by headstamp 2 (Time to move forward not to the center.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

My version of the Buffet rule is that all Berkshire Hathaway investors pay the normal 15% capital gains tax, plus a special 65% “secretary tax”.


11 posted on 01/27/2012 11:54:41 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So, his secretary owns TWO homes, and he wants people to see her as being treated unfairly? I own zero homes, but I’m not complaining that the “Rich” do not pay enough in taxes. The argument isn’t about whether this group or that pays too much or too little. The argument is that the GOVERNMENT squanders what they take in revenue. The argument is that the GOVERNMENT places too many regulations and restrictions upon people who run small or large businesses, stiffling job creation. The argument is that the GOVERNMENT has become too wieldy, attempting to control ALL aspects of EVERYONES lives. The argument is that GOVERNMENT is the problem.


12 posted on 01/27/2012 11:59:44 AM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
He's not only a world class rich guy - He's a world class hypocrite.


13 posted on 01/27/2012 12:01:30 PM PST by Iron Munro ("Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight he'll just kill you." John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If Buffett wants to shill for Obama’s ugly agenda, he should not be surprised to get some vociferous pushback. Lie down with dogs, etc.
14 posted on 01/27/2012 12:06:53 PM PST by The Electrician ("Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

What he said.


15 posted on 01/27/2012 12:10:14 PM PST by the_devils_advocate_666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Poor dummy, he puts his secretary in the national spotlight and cries when the light is shined on her


16 posted on 01/27/2012 12:25:07 PM PST by italianquaker ( Mr Obama inherited an AAA rating and made it AA, thnx Resident Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
less than half Bosanek's 35.8 percent rate

Is that her total tax rate or her marginal tax rate?

If it is her total tax rate and assuming she is married filing jointly with Nebraska income tax and SS+Medicare up to 106,000 and only Medicare above that, I come up with a pay of about $357,000. I ignored deductions and exemptions and any capital gains, even though she should have some. If those were included her income would have to be even higher to get to 35.8% total income and payroll taxes. I also didn't count the employer's half of social security. Either way, she is right about at the bottom edge of the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil top 1% of income earners, and I dislike how she is being used as a political bloody shirt comparing the income taxes paid by a 1%-er against a the capital gains of a 0.001%-er.

17 posted on 01/27/2012 1:41:58 PM PST by KarlInOhio (Herman Cain: possibly the escapee most dangerous to the Democrats since Frederick Douglass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Veggie Todd
the whole leftist schtick is to pretend to tax the ultras more but in reality, make the little people pay more income,and SS and property and sales tax and gas tax...

and then give them less....less services, less Medicare...less SS....

why doesn't Warren pay off his company's $20,000,000,000.00 tax bill, as I recall...

18 posted on 01/27/2012 3:14:13 PM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Buffett is such a hypocrite. He is currently fighting the IRS in court over taxes owed and he takes only a 100,000 salary. Precisely to minimize his taxes.


19 posted on 01/27/2012 3:23:22 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
Mr. Buffett released his math here.

Basically, it's line 60 (tax) + SS+Medicare taxes paid (the full 14.2%) / line 43 (taxable income -- not AGI).

Which is to say all the huffing and puffing boils down to him not paying SS/Medicare on the 60 million in capital gains and dividends.

Well, that and the 14.2% ss/medicare tax is applied before any deductions and credits so an individual with a $100,000 salary, $14,200 in FICA taxes, $85,800 in deductions (that's a lot of kids) and $1,500 in income tax has a 110% tax rate, according to his "math".

Worth noting -- as of 2013, there's a 3.8% medicare tax on investment income in excess of $250,000.

20 posted on 01/27/2012 9:37:09 PM PST by RagingBull (Talent does what it can; genius does what it must)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

She’s rich. I thought the Dems wanted rich people to pay high taxes?


21 posted on 01/27/2012 10:54:47 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RagingBull

Even if you count both halves of SS and Medicare, the legit way of doing it is (income tax + employee’s payroll tax + employer’s payroll tax) / (gross pay + employer’s payroll tax). You have to count the employer’s side in addition to the gross pay because it is part of the total pay and benefits. Counting the employer’s payroll tax only in the numerator is crooked. Dividing by the pay after deductions and exemptions is outright intellectual fraud. You might as well just make up a number.


22 posted on 01/27/2012 10:58:50 PM PST by KarlInOhio (Herman Cain: possibly the escapee most dangerous to the Democrats since Frederick Douglass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio; RagingBull
Even if you count both halves of SS and Medicare, the legit way of doing it is (income tax + employee’s payroll tax + employer’s payroll tax) / (gross pay + employer’s payroll tax). You have to count the employer’s side in addition to the gross pay because it is part of the total pay and benefits. Counting the employer’s payroll tax only in the numerator is crooked.

I agree with counting the employer's payroll tax.

Dividing by the pay after deductions and exemptions is outright intellectual fraud. You might as well just make up a number.

However, I disagree on this. Suppose that person A makes $100,000 in gross pay, gives $90,000 in charity and pays the other $10,000 in taxes. Then suppose that person B also makes $100,000 but gives nothing to charity and pays $20,000 in taxes. Person A is paying 100% of taxable income to person B's 20% but is paying 10% of gross pay to person B's 20%. By your logic, person B is paying a higher tax rate despite the fact that he is left with $80,000 and person A is left with nothing. Deductions are a separate issue. If they are unjust or inequitable, then they should be changed. But they should not be used to compare tax rates. I write more on Buffett's tax rate versus that of his secretary at this link.

23 posted on 01/28/2012 1:16:23 AM PST by remember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is easily solved, the House Ways and Means Committee needs to hold Hearings on Taxation then ORDER BOTH TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH and Bring their TAX RECORDS for further examination. When it is proven that they BOTH LIED in an effort to defraud the Taxpayers out of more of their hard earned money based on THEIR FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION of FACT, PUT THEM IN PRISON and Seize their Assets for their CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC. FRAUD. Call these people out, force them to prove their ridiculous statements.


24 posted on 01/29/2012 5:12:43 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson