Buffet answers the GOP poliicians by showing his tax return

[Openmind]

The GOP seem to have a difficult time understanding that Buffett could possibly be sincere when he states that he, and people like him, should be paying more taxes.

So, a GOP Congressman dared him to release the specifics on how much taxed he REALLY paid. . .Buffett had no problem answering that demand:

Here it is:

Warren Buffett releases tax figures to GOP
By Alicia M. Cohn - 10/12/11 01:30 PM ET

Warren Buffett replied this week to a Republican request that he reveal his tax returns, revealing he made more than $62 million in income last year while paying $15,300 in payroll taxes.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) sent an open letter last month to the billionaire investor, who has become the big-business mascot for the Obama administration’s plan to raise taxes on the wealthy, demanding that reveal his tax returns.


According to Huelskamp — in a view expressed by other Republicans including Sens. John Cornyn (Texas) and Jim DeMint (S.C.) — if Buffett’s views on tax rates are going to serve as the basis for the White House’s proposals, Congress should be allowed to examine the basis of his argument. Buffett has cited his own tax rate as being lower than that of his secretary when making his case for raising taxes on him and his “ultra rich” friends.

Buffett revealed in a letter sent to Huelskamp that his adjusted gross income was $62,855,038 last year and that he paid $15,300 in payroll taxes, as reported by CNN Money. He also claimed, as he had in an op-ed previously this year, that his federal income tax bill last year came to $6,923,494, or about 17 percent of his $39,814,784 taxable income.

Huelskamp called Buffett's response "inadequate."

 

[dogtowner]

Wow, wonder how he kicked his taxable down 22million+ ? Must have a heck of a lot of mortgage interest.

 

[Openmind]

Wow, wonder how he kicked his taxable down 22million+ ? Must have a heck of a lot of mortgage interest.

Remember those "loopholes" that Obama wants to get rid of?

 

[PLC1]

What's inadequate about that? He gave the figures, gave the percentage, what else is needed?

Do they want a list of the loopholes that were used to arrive at those figures?


One of the richest people in America paid 17%. Before the Obama tax cuts, the $100,000 a year guy paid in 10% just in payroll taxes, then paid at least another 7% in income taxes, more if he didn't have a lot of deductions.

and those tax cuts are just temporary, you know, just lasting until after the election.

Much like the "Bush tax cuts" passed before the last election.

 

[dogtowner]

Remember those "loopholes" that Obama wants to get rid of?

I guess he has a plane but his business would own it, not him.
Cadillac hewalthcare ? Maybe.

 

[dogtowner]

What's inadequate about that? He gave the figures, gave the percentage, what else is needed?

Do they want a list of the loopholes that were used to arrive at those figures?

said he sent the return so that would appear to be included.

One of the richest people in America paid 17%. Before the Obama tax cuts, the $100,000 a year guy paid in 10% just in payroll taxes, then paid at least another 7% in income taxes, more if he didn't have a lot of deductions.

and those tax cuts are just temporary, you know, just lasting until after the election.

Much like the "Bush tax cuts" passed before the last election.

For some reason this clown thought he would not turn them over. silly really since Buffett loves envy.

 

[Openmind]

I guess he has a plane but his business would own it, not him.
Cadillac hewalthcare ? Maybe.

I'm sure it takes more than that to account for $25 millions difference between gross income and adjusted gross income. . .
That's what so crazy and unfair!

Obviously, the lower income people pay the same % in sales taxes (on what they buy, of course), and the same % in payroll taxes. . .but they don't have any loop holes to resort to, except (maybe, if they are lucky enough to own 10% of their home!) mortgage interest deductions!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

its like the Obama birth certificate...its just something they used to not deal with the issue...they never wanted to actually see it.

Buffet pays 17%
GE pays nothing
Exxon gets Rebates
I pay in..

republicans say if I ask why I should pay more...its class war.

If this is class war, then before it was a Class Massacre by the wealthy on the middle class.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm sure it takes more than that to account for $25 millions difference between gross income and adjusted gross income. . .
That's what so crazy and unfair!

Obviously, the lower income people pay the same % in sales taxes (on what they buy, of course), and the same % in payroll taxes. . .but they don't have any loop holes to resort to, except (maybe, if they are lucky enough to own 10% of their home!) mortgage interest deductions!

we all have access to the same set of deductions. No idea what the 10% comment is all about, mortgage interest is not restricted so. But it is quite a gap hes got, more related to investment I'd surmize and a boatload of documented charfitables. Good for him.

 

[Dr.Who]

This has already been hashed out and we already know the answers.

First of all income is not the same as earned income. Until the article makes the distinction it will not be useful. The first 90% of the article intentionally makes it seem as if payroll tax is the same as income tax. Only at the end do we see the better measure of tax.

Has anyone here bothered to ask what the difference between payroll tax, the tax mentioned in the article, and income tax is? Payroll tax is the social security and unemployment taxes one pays. On top of that people also pay other taxes. It is basically a lie to write an article and only include payroll taxes as the one figure used to describe a persons taxes paid to the IRS.

Secondly, we know that he gives tons to charity which is a deduction and is the largest factor in the low amount he pays on his income.

Lastly, the reporter knows he is playing fast and loose with the facts becuase he refers to the payroll taxes and ignores the other taxes, for most of the article, that Buffet has paid - such as the fact that buffet first pays on whatever earned income he has and then pays again on the proceeds from that income when it is invested.

Every one of Buffets rich secretaries could lower their percentage to about 17% as well if they just invested more of their income and gave more to charity. Big deal. And what about the people who are not rich secretaries? Well they either don't pay any income taxes at all or they pay less than 17%.

This whole mess is just a pack of distortions on Buffets part and the media too. It has been proven several times already and his releasing his return changes nothing.

Is the goal for everyone to pay the same amount in taxes? If that were the case then a flat tax would accomplish that.

Is the goal for everyone to pay a different rate of tax? Then that is the definition of unfair.

Taxing the rich more will not result in a smaller difference in wealth between those who have a lot and those who do not. It will not result in better living conditions for the poor. It will not increase the total revenue that the gov collects - it will probably lower it by a small amount.

Removing the charitable giving deduction will result in less being given to charity and that will hurt the poor. It will also increase statism.

 

[Dr.Who]

Wow, wonder how he kicked his taxable down 22million+ ? Must have a heck of a lot of mortgage interest.

Most of it was the charitable giving deduction which is available to all and would allow anyone at all to do the same.

 

[GenSeneca]

When asked about what changes Buffet was proposing, he said that what he was suggesting is the closing of a tax loophole which would only affect about 50,000 of the richest people in America. That's a far cry from Obama's "Buffet Rule" which would increase the tax rates on millions of Americans.

 

[dogtowner]

When asked about what changes Buffet was proposing, he said that what he was suggesting is the closing of a tax loophole which would only affect about 50,000 of the richest people in America. That's a far cry from Obama's "Buffet Rule" which would increase the tax rates on millions of Americans.

wonder if Buffett will sue to get his name off the bill ?

 

[Dr.Who]

When asked about what changes Buffet was proposing, he said that what he was suggesting is the closing of a tax loophole which would only affect about 50,000 of the richest people in America. That's a far cry from Obama's "Buffet Rule" which would increase the tax rates on millions of Americans.

So the "Buffet rule" raises rates?

If the problem is loopholes then lets talk about that loophole. But lets all remember that the rate and the loopholes are completely different things. It makes no sense to complain about loopholes and then to talk about raising the rate. Yes you are right the rate is a far cry from a loophole.

So, what is the loophole that buffet used? The largest one is the charitable giving exemption.

Really? Is anyone really considering removing the exemption that helps the poor? The exemption that is a direct result of the constitutional principle of the state not making laws that punish religious activity? The exemption that is also a direct result of the principle of free speech? The changes that would be required in the tax code to make eliminating such an exemption practical and right are so severe they would never happen.

 

[dogtowner]

So the "Buffet rule" raises rates?

If the problem is loopholes then lets talk about that loophole. But lets all remember that the rate and the loopholes are completely different things. It makes no sense to complain about loopholes and then to talk about raising the rate. Yes you are right the rate is a far cry from a loophole.

So, what is the loophole that buffet used? The largest one is the charitable giving exemption.

Really? Is anyone really considering removing the exemption that helps the poor? The exemption that is a direct result of the constitutional principle of the state not making laws that punish religious activity? The exemption that is also a direct result of the principle of free speech? The changes that would be required in the tax code to make eliminating such an exemption practical and right are so severe they would never happen.

I suspect Gen was referring to the relative rates in play in this discussion of capital gains rate vs marginalk income tax rate. Some view the very nature of their being a cap gains rate at all as a lookhole to favor the wealthy (as oppoaed to, say, encouraging investment).