• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Buffett: Tax the Rich

Based on Buffet's numbers, his taxable income was around $40 million. This would have put him in the 35% tax rate. This means he had to have had to take deductions of around $21 million to make his tax bill equal to about $6 million. This is rough estimation, of course, but pretty close.

If he feels that he isn't paying enough, why did he take so much in deductions? What am I missing here?
 
Based on Buffet's numbers, his taxable income was around $40 million. This would have put him in the 35% tax rate. This means he had to have had to take deductions of around $21 million to make his tax bill equal to about $6 million. This is rough estimation, of course, but pretty close.

If he feels that he isn't paying enough, why did he take so much in deductions? What am I missing here?

You aren't missing anything. If fairness were something he was really interested in, he could start with his own tax burden. He apparently isn't interested enough in it to do that, so color me skeptical about what his real motives might be in this case.
 
Last edited:
A higher cap-gain rate can change expectation value of a good investment with a positive return into a loser with a negative return.



No it can't. you don't pay capital gains on negative return, in fact you receive deduction you can use against future taxes.
 
It actually doesn't matter what he is doing with the money he isn't handing over to the IRS. Since he is using his tax rate as compared to his secretary's as an example of the inequity, he supposedly believes he isn't paying enough. That is easily rectified. The inequity obviously doesn't bother him THAT much.

him paying more to the IRS would not change anything about the inequality....
that is why he wants the taxing to change. and not only for him.
 
Based on Buffet's numbers, his taxable income was around $40 million. This would have put him in the 35% tax rate. This means he had to have had to take deductions of around $21 million to make his tax bill equal to about $6 million. This is rough estimation, of course, but pretty close.

If he feels that he isn't paying enough, why did he take so much in deductions? What am I missing here?

What you are missing is that that the higest tax rate that applies to him is only 20% and with deductions his final tax rate was probably closer to 17%. His complain he and his peers pay tax rates in the 15% - 20% range while the people who work for them pay 25% - 35%
 
him paying more to the IRS would not change anything about the inequality....
that is why he wants the taxing to change. and not only for him.

He used himself as an example and has the power to change that inequity in his own case. As a skeptic, I'm questioning the motives of someone who says one thing (my tax rate is too low) while he does another (uses the tax code to his advantage). If he believes what he says, he can lead by example and cut the IRS a check.
 
He used himself as an example and has the power to change that inequity in his own case. As a skeptic, I'm questioning the motives of someone who says one thing (my tax rate is too low) while he does another (uses the tax code to his advantage). If he believes what he says, he can lead by example and cut the IRS a check.

him just paying more will not change the unjust system, what about it do you not understand?
 
from what planet are you?

I'm from a planet where populist rhetoric and demagogic political arguments are not accepted as fact.

Go read Kyle Bass' (Harmon Assoc) testimony to Congress or his paper on the matter. He suggest that the secondary market for AIG's insurance banking needs regulation - but wasn't subject of any de-regulation.

You can't even propose a coherent counter argument - just an insult - you don't deserve any response.


Unfortunately from a planet where there are also people claiming that ID and evolution are "Competing Theories".

Really ? You can post the falsehood that I ever or in any way supported ID ?
You are a liar ! There is no other term for your false and insulting assertion.
Welcome to the ignore list.

Again - your lack of on topic rebuttal proves you have no grasp of the issue.
 
I have not bee able to do the reading I'd like to, but I hve some concerns about Buffet's position.

First, of course, is the rather obvious point that Buffet makes money by selling products - like certain types of insurance - that would be an obvious place for people with a lot of moneyto try and run to with their money if they couldn't use it for investment. Meaning he potentiall profits from his seeming altruism, but that point doesn't seem to be brought out much. He's selling his position as some sort of altruism, but inthe long run, he or his companies might well use the change in the tax code to make out like bandits.

I'm not quite getting this--would you mind elaborating? Buffet doesn't make his living selling products that I'm aware of (although he does invest in insurance and other industries). Someone else brought up the idea that Buffet's philanthropy is for tax reasons...if you're giving away 99% of your very sizable fortune to charity, I would call that genuinely altruistic--I can't think of any ulterior motive other than wanting people to think you're generous.

Anyhow, this thread isn't about whether Buffet is a genuine philanthropist or not, it's about his views on how much the uber rich pay in taxes.
 
Based on Buffet's numbers, his taxable income was around $40 million. This would have put him in the 35% tax rate. This means he had to have had to take deductions of around $21 million to make his tax bill equal to about $6 million. This is rough estimation, of course, but pretty close.

If he feels that he isn't paying enough, why did he take so much in deductions? What am I missing here?

He said that his tax rate was about 18%, while others in his office who made much, much less than him, paid a higher percentage. He thinks that very, very rich people shouldn't be paying less than middle class or slightly rich people. I agree. Why should he pay a lower tax bracket than someone making much, much less money?
 
He used himself as an example and has the power to change that inequity in his own case. As a skeptic, I'm questioning the motives of someone who says one thing (my tax rate is too low) while he does another (uses the tax code to his advantage). If he believes what he says, he can lead by example and cut the IRS a check.

What do you think his true motives are? Why would he say that he himself, and others like him, should pay more in taxes?

Don't you think it's reasonable to argue that someone making 10s of millions of dollars a year shouldn't be paying 15-18% while there are folks paying 35% in taxes making hundreds of thousands a year?
 
Originally Posted by stevea
A higher cap-gain rate can change expectation value of a good investment with a positive return into a loser with a negative return.

No it can't. you don't pay capital gains on negative return, in fact you receive deduction you can use against future taxes.

Well you read the words, but clearly you don't understand investment analysis.

Allow me to create a simplistic example that will avoid the complex notation and discussion of probability distributions. Imagine an investment where there is (a priori) a 42% probability of complete loss of investment and a 58% probability of doubling the investment. It *sounds* great but ....

Case 1/ Pretax.
For every dollar invested there is a 42% chance of losing $1, and a 58% chance of gaining $1. Therefore the expectation value of the return on the investment is
0.42*(-1) + 0.58*(+1) = 0.16. You expect a 16% return on average, before considering tax. Fabulous return.

Case 2/ 15% CG rate on gains
If a 15% LTCG rate applies then the return applies, that the expectation value (I'm ignoring the loss tax reduction, will discuss later) then the expectation value of return is
0.42*(-1) + 0.58*(+1)*0.85 = 0.073 or 7.3%. Still a decent return.

Case 3/ 35% CG rate on gains.
If a 35% tax rate applies then ... 0.42*(-1) + 0.58*(+1)*0.65 = -0.043, a 4.3% percent loss !! No one in this tax rate would touch this investment. It needs to at least exceed other safer investments. It's a clear loser.

--

You're statement
you don't pay capital gains on negative return, in fact you receive deduction you can use against future taxes.
Is wrong, but we must consider tax treatement of the losses.

Of course there is no CapGain tax on any net loss. No one suggested otherwise.

NO the treatment of Capital Loss is NOT a DEDUCTION. Deductions are from schedule A and calculated after AGI. Cap Gains and accepted losses are adjustment to AGI, part of income.. This has an important impact on AMT calculation.

Cap gains and losses (ST & LT separately) can cancel each other in the year realized. ST Gains are taxed at the normal tax rate. LT Gains are currently taxed at 15%.
Net ST Losses are combined with net LT losses and can only be applied at $3k/yr ($1.5k.or MFS status) as net loss.

The remaining losses have complex treatment for carryover.. There is a one year ST-Loss carry over possible, however it's dependent on other factors such he amounts of realized LT gains and ... well it's very dicey to arrange. You are likely to lose any ST loss not applied in the year realized. The LT-loss is clearer. You can carry over the entire amount and reduce your LT gains realized in future years to the (net of all CGs) limit of the $3k ($1.5k) limit.

The ST strategy is this; if you have a pending ST Loss and you don't have an ST Gain to realize in the same year, then you may be better off holding the equity for the full year to create an LT loss (instead of an ST loss). This means loss of the use of remaining equity and the risk of further declines. So this can be costly but perhaps better than losing the tax advantage.

The LTC-loss strategy is to apply that loss as quickly as possible. $3k/yr isn't much help, you need to create an offsetting LTCG. Every year is sits on your books is an opportunity loss. Most people in higher tax brackets already manage investments to reduce or delay CG realization. so you already MAY have some stock position with a realizible gain. The problem is that if you like the investment you have to sell, and avoid the wash sale tax rule. There are ways to get past this - but they are complex and ugly.
IOW you have to shuffle your portfolio needlessly to reduce taxes (apply the loss).

The real headache comes in down years like 1986 or 2008 were many investor need to re-arrange portfolios and have to realize losses. And also they are unlikely to have much gains sitting around to offset these. In such a case you'll likely to lose most of the ST losses have to carry forward the loss for many years, losing money every year.

Somewhere about a decade ago I read a statistic that well over half of capital losses are never applied to taxes. It's easy to imagine. Many ST losses that can't be applied in the year realized are lost. LT losses that occur late in one's investment career or lifecycle may never be applied. There is also the matter of marginal tax rate in the year the loss is applied. I know I had some LT losses in a year when the rate was 28% and I had to apply these in later years when the rate was 15%. That's a big reduction in CG loss value.


So let's be generous and assume that the investor in case 3/ (high CG rate) can apply half the loss effectively.

Case 4/ 35% CG rate on gains, half of loss applicable to (17.5%effective loss rate).
then ... 0.42*(-1)*(0.825) + 0.58*(+1)*0.65 = -0.0305, lose 3.05% another clear loser.

Sorry - CG tax rates (and carry over rules) have a great impact on investment outcome.
These complex tax rules are mostly pointless and distort markets and make rational
investment unreasonably difficult.

=========

Buffet can claim that investors don't care about taxes all he likes. No serious investor believes it. It's demagoguery for the ignorami.
 
Last edited:
What you are missing is that that the higest tax rate that applies to him is only 20% and with deductions his final tax rate was probably closer to 17%. His complain he and his peers pay tax rates in the 15% - 20% range while the people who work for them pay 25% - 35%

How is the highest tax rate 20%? Income tax at his income level is 35%. So if he paid 35% of $19 million, this would be an effective tax rate of about 17% of his $40 million income or $6.6 million. The only way he could achieve this is by claiming a lot of deductions on his return; i.e., medical expenses, capital losses, etc. So if he wants to pay more in tax, why doesn't he just not claim all the deductions?

I also have trouble with the numbers he gives for his employees. He says they get charged 25%-35% of their income. Did they not claim deductions? Their effective tax rates would have to be at least a little lower than their actual tax rate, no? So who was paying an effective tax rate of 35%? Those people need to fire their tax planners ASAP!
 
I recommend reading Paul Krugman's blog in the NYT.

He have been writing on "Liquidity Trap" and how businesses are currently sitting on huge piles of cash with no incentive to invest in production as there is no demand.

One solution would be to tax it and then spend it on public projects.
 
Who takes Krugman seriously? Yeah take money from private hands and give it to goverment - that always works great:rolleyes:

Cato institute writed a piece on Buffet:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13582

"The first problem with Buffett's view is that the number of super-rich is too small for higher rates to make much difference to our budget problems.

In 2009, the income earned by the 236,833 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $727 billion. Imposing a 10% surcharge on this income would generate at most $73 billion in new revenue — only about 2% of federal spending. And $73 billion is optimistic; the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield."
 
As always in these sort of threads, I see an awful lot of attacking the arguer rather than the argument.
 
Who takes Krugman seriously? Yeah take money from private hands and give it to goverment - that always works great:rolleyes:

Cato institute writed a piece on Buffet:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13582

"The first problem with Buffett's view is that the number of super-rich is too small for higher rates to make much difference to our budget problems.

In 2009, the income earned by the 236,833 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $727 billion. Imposing a 10% surcharge on this income would generate at most $73 billion in new revenue — only about 2% of federal spending. And $73 billion is optimistic; the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield."

Yet the Cato-type people want to 'broaden the tax base', by imposing higher taxes on poor Americans. Which coincidentally would raise even less in revenue.

I'll take Krugman over Cato hacks any single day.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom