Skip to comments.Berkshire's Munger wants 1% to take pay cut
Posted on 05/05/2014 2:49:20 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
The 1% needs to stop whining
Munger said he did not think that super-wealthy types like investors Tom Perkins and Sam Zell should be complaining about feeling persecuted because they are rich.
He said that taxes on the affluent are not as onerous as they once were.
"The taxes on wealth were much higher when I was much younger. So for somebody of my age, I don't think they're ruining the world because I've lived through way more punitive taxes on the rich than we have now," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
If these taxes were in place when he was coming up, he would have a fraction of the money he has.
Going to explain it to a gullible democrat supporter like this; If I take $400 out of your pay check, would you have more options?
The more taken from the private sector, the smaller and fewer options in the private sector.
When you're cozy with the government and money falls out of the sky, you shouldn't mind giving some back.
All this Income Equality tripe is premised upon the belief that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the country. Thus, in order for someone to have more,another must have less.
The concept of growing the economy or adding additional value for which another will pay has been abandoned by the chattering class.
The two old frauds, Buffett and Munger, should shut up. They curry favor with the federal government by buying the Democrats off with large campaign donations .the accepted way to buy “protection” from oppressive regulation.
They have kept the Keystone pipeline from competing with their railroad in transporting shale oil, even though rail shipping is much more expensive and dangerous.
Sam Zell is a conservative, so he is supposed to pay the full freight, however. This country is just one step up from Mexico in government corruption.
The taxes on wealth were much higher when I was much younger.
I think a 0.5% portfolio/asset/net worth tax instead of any income tax would be just fine. I wonder if the billionaire would agree?
I doubt it. The published federal income tax rates were much higher, but that's not the same thing for several reasons. First, state and sales taxes were much lower. Second, there were tons of loopholes and exemptions that were commonly used. Third, you have to be aware of the differences between income taxation and taxation of accumulated wealth.
In my opinion, a wealth tax is a bad idea--it would keep getting bigger over time; it would raise the cost of capital (people would expect a real return) and reduce capital formation; and it just sucks that after you've accumulated some wealth despite being taxed along the way, the government should have the right to steadily leach (or should I use "leech"?) it away.
How about a 10% tax on assets over one billion dollars? Wonder if he likes that idea? Likely not, as it would adversely affect HIM.