Warren Buffett tells Congress to stop coddling the rich

Tools    





In the Beginning...
This is a dynamite op-ed piece by Warren Buffett from the New York Times, if anyone hasn't yet read it:

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.



Buffett's been beating this drum for years, but it's not true. He doesn't pay less than his secretary: he's completely ignoring corporate income taxes, dividend taxes, the estate tax, and pretty much every form of double-taxation.

He's also unusual in that he's placed an insane amount of money into a charitable trust, which exempts him from quite a bit. So if his point is that rich people can lower their taxes by giving billions to charity, uh...okay?

And this is without even getting into the fact that you're not going to be able to insulate an increased tax burden on the wealthy from harming business and investment, which in will turn will hurt--not help--the jobs market.

So, Buffett's wrong, like, three different ways.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Warren Buffett can't be wrong because he very rich which makes him very wise.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula





I remember seeing an argument about the possibility of a double-dip recession about a year ago where one guy's entire argument was based on the idea that Bill Gates said we wouldn't have one.



Buffett's been beating this drum for years, but it's not true. He doesn't pay less than his secretary: he's completely ignoring corporate income taxes, dividend taxes, the estate tax, and pretty much every form of double-taxation.

He's also unusual in that he's placed an insane amount of money into a charitable trust, which exempts him from quite a bit. So if his point is that rich people can lower their taxes by giving billions to charity, uh...okay?

And this is without even getting into the fact that you're not going to be able to insulate an increased tax burden on the wealthy from harming business and investment, which in will turn will hurt--not help--the jobs market.

So, Buffett's wrong, like, three different ways.
... not at all.

First, Buffett is neither a corporation nor an estate, hence the person-to-person point of his comparison. Even if he pays those taxes, he and his wealthy brethren can afford to do so; the rich pay most of the taxes because they possess an overwhelming (and rising) proportion of the nation's wealth, to the point where the economy now resembles a pyramid scheme. Indeed, one could argue that their tax payments are not in line with their wealth.

Second, there is no evidence that raising taxes on the rich would burden them or negatively affect the overall economy. In the years between Clinton's tax hike of 1993 and the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, business and investment did not suffer; instead, they thrived. Higher taxes on the wealthy are not really going to affect them one way or the other; as Buffett writes (and he's in a position to know), investors are still going to invest.

Third, the only way for this country to place itself on firm fiscal footing and to do so in a fair manner is by raising revenue from the rich. Bill Clinton did it, George H.W. Bush did it, and even Ronald Reagan did it at times; the rich did not suffer then and they won't suffer now or stop investing. Indeed, any countering notions are just a manifestation of fallacious right-wing ideology contradicted by history.

I'm not a socialist (let alone a Communist); I believe strongly in free markets and free enterprise and I'd like tax rates to be low as feasible. But right now, the only feasible maneuver is to raise revenue from the rich in order to reverse the pattern of rising deficits and debt without decimating crucial investments elsewhere. (By the way, the trend of swelling deficits and debt began with Reagan, only to be eventually reversed by Clinton and then restarted by George W. Bush.) This idea especially makes sense because an increased tax burden for the wealthy won't really be a burden and is unlikely to cause economic stagnation any worse than what we're currently seeing.

Right now, America's economic situation is akin to a baseball team pitching its middling-to-poor relievers, its too old or too young relievers, on an everyday basis while the highly paid ace closer receives constant days off so that he can play golf instead. Indeed, the structure is unsustainable and will eventually cripple the club (or country).



This is a dynamite op-ed piece by Warren Buffett from the New York Times, if anyone hasn't yet read it:

... terrific article, thanks for posting it.



First, Buffett is neither a corporation nor an estate, hence the person-to-person point of his comparison.
Er, but he owns stock in a corporation, and his wealth will comprise an "estate" when he dies. The point being: more of the money is taxed. Some of it is taxed twice. Thus, his assertion that he pays a lower percentage in taxes than his secretary--which is his central argument--is false.

Even if he pays those taxes, he and his wealthy brethren can afford to do so
"They can afford it" isn't a very compelling defense. That's precisely why Buffett writes editorials like this: because he knows "hey, that guy has more money, so we should be allowed to take more" is a terrible argument for raising taxes on someone.

the rich pay most of the taxes because they possess an overwhelming (and rising) proportion of the nation's wealth, to the point where the economy now resembles a pyramid scheme. Indeed, one could argue that their tax payments are not in line with their wealth.
I'd like to hear how "one" could make that argument, seeing as how their income tax rates are higher and the other mechanisms of corporate ownership are taxed on top of that. It seems to me that, by paying a percentage of your income, by definition your tax payments will always be in line with your wealth.

Unless, of course, you just start with the arbitrary assumption and baseline that it's okay (and even good!) to take more money from people who have more just because they have it.

I also note that you say they pay "most" of the taxes and possess and "overwhelming" amount of wealth. The word "overwhelming" is just as appropriate in the first instance.

Second, there is no evidence that raising taxes on the rich would burden them or negatively affect the overall economy. In the years between Clinton's tax hike of 1993 and the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, business and investment did not suffer; instead, they thrived. Higher taxes on the wealthy are not really going to affect them one way or the other; as Buffett writes (and he's in a position to know), investors are still going to invest.
There are a few problems with this:

1) The fact that you can raise taxes and still have economic growth in no way demonstrates that raising taxes does not harm it, any more than stuffing yourself with donuts but exercising enough to work it off means that donuts won't make you fat. You're treating economic growth as binary, as if we're either doing fine or not. But that's not how it works: if we have a 3% level of growth instead of a 4% level of growth, we've harmed growth. The fact that we haven't done it to the point of causing a recession changes nothing.

2) "Higher taxes on the wealthy are not going to affect them one way or the other." Wha? Raising taxes on anything results in less of it. What you're saying is unheard of even among economists who favor what you're suggesting, and doesn't even make sense theoretically.

3) "Investors are still going to invest." There it is again: the assumption that these things are binary. As if investors either invest or do not. In reality, investors invest more or less. Some people right on the margin invest or do not.

The logic is quite simple: every investment is a calculation between risk and reward, yes? Which means the cost of the investment is weighed against the potential reward. Raising taxes on investments increases the cost, right? Which means some investments that would have been seen as worthwhile before are no longer so, or not worth investing as much in. Thus, raising taxes on investment and business discourages it, and guarantees we'll get less of it.

The idea that wealth, investment, and risk-taking is just "there" and you can kick it around and eat away at it with absolutely no reduction in them is simply not so, and creating policy based on that error would be incredibly damaging to the economy. People who create wealth should not be taken for granted.

Third, the only way for this country to place itself on firm fiscal footing and to do so in a fair manner is by raising revenue from the rich. Bill Clinton did it, George H.W. Bush did it, and even Ronald Reagan did it at times; the rich did not suffer then and they won't suffer now or stop investing. Indeed, any countering notions are just a manifestation of fallacious right-wing ideology contradicted by history.
See above for explanation of false assumptions about binary outcomes.

There is basically nothing supporting the statement that the "only way" to get us on firm fiscal footing is to raise taxes on the rich, so I don't feel the need to rebut something that hasn't been demonstrated. We'd be on firm financial footing with entitlement reform, as well. That's the beast that keeps on growing. At best, taxing the rich at higher rates will fend it off for a bit, but seeing as how they're all fundamentally insolent and growing exponentially worse, reform is inevitable, and therefore the only real solution. And it comes without the error of harming business and investment that is inextricably attached to raising taxes (heh, sorry, "revenue") from the wealthy.

Right now, America's economic situation is akin to a baseball team pitching its middling-to-poor relievers, its too old or too young relievers, on an everyday basis while the highly paid ace closer receives constant days off so that he can play golf instead. Indeed, the structure is unsustainable and will eventually cripple the club (or country).
This analogy might make sense if the highly paid ace closer owned the team and was the reason it existed in the first place.



And just for kicks, here's an article showing that even significantly raising taxes on the wealthy would leave us with quite a bit of debt left over:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ion-won-t-solv

The problem is spending. Programs that grow at an exponential rate cannot be paid for with taxes; taxes can only delay that day of reckoning, by definition. And while there are obvious harms and limits to how much you can tax people, we've yet to find an amount of money government cannot spend. That's why spending is the problem.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Is there still such a thing as a credible source that I do not have to bite my tongue to trust?
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



I wouldn't hold my breath on that PN.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



There may never have been. Everything should be subject to scrutiny. But in this case, we're talking about simple math, so there might be a bit less room for chicanery than usual.

Either way, the basic theory laid out after the link makes the same point, regardless of how the actual numbers stack up at any particular moment. There's no way to actually pay for insolvent, exponentially increasing entitlement programs. We buy ourselves time with taxes until we suck it up and make the reforms necessary.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
And just for kicks, here's an article showing that even significantly raising taxes on the wealthy would leave us with quite a bit of debt left over:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ion-won-t-solv

The problem is spending. Programs that grow at an exponential rate cannot be paid for with taxes; taxes can only delay that day of reckoning, by definition. And while there are obvious harms and limits to how much you can tax people, we've yet to find an amount of money government cannot spend. That's why spending is the problem.
I am not going to dispute its findings, but that is not an unbiased article. The Tax foundation is not nonpartisan except technically. It is a conservative think tank whose mission is to lower and protest taxes.



Aye. People are free to do their own math and dispute it, if they like. As I said, I don't claim it as definitive or non-partisan (though, of course, partisan is not the same thing as being wrong). I simply present it for consideration; Buffett's claims are easily refutable without getting into any math at all.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
But their report doesn't contradict anything Buffet said. He didn't say anything about not reducing government spending, but that the rich should pay more.









There are a few problems with this:

1) The fact that you can raise taxes and still have economic growth in no way demonstrates that raising taxes does not harm it, any more than stuffing yourself with donuts but exercising enough to work it off means that donuts won't make you fat. You're treating economic growth as binary, as if we're either doing fine or not. But that's not how it works: if we have a 3% level of growth instead of a 4% level of growth, we've harmed growth. The fact that we haven't done it to the point of causing a recession changes nothing.

2) "Higher taxes on the wealthy are not going to affect them one way or the other." Wha? Raising taxes on anything results in less of it. What you're saying is unheard of even among economists who favor what you're suggesting, and doesn't even make sense theoretically.

3) "Investors are still going to invest." There it is again: the assumption that these things are binary. As if investors either invest or do not. In reality, investors invest more or less. Some people right on the margin invest or do not.

The logic is quite simple: every investment is a calculation between risk and reward, yes? Which means the cost of the investment is weighed against the potential reward. Raising taxes on investments increases the cost, right? Which means some investments that would have been seen as worthwhile before are no longer so, or not worth investing as much in. Thus, raising taxes on investment and business discourages it, and guarantees we'll get less of it.
Your comments make perfect sense in terms of abstract theory and mathematical logic. However, I'm not sure that theory and logic that are immaculate on paper prove consistently accurate in human life. Paul Krugman (whatever one may think of him, I believe that he's correct on this point) has observed that much of the reason for the 2008 economic crash can be found in an unmitigated belief in the sheer rationality of economic markets. However, economic markets are influenced and in some cases run by human beings and as anyone should know, human beings are not consistently or unwaveringly rational. Therefore, there is a discrepancy that can unravel the illusion of perfectly rational economic activity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/ma...conomic-t.html

You are right that for all that we know, growth and investment may have proved even higher during the Clinton years had he not raised taxes. But since speculation cannot be proven, we cannot know for sure and my point is that the growth and investment that we actually witnessed proved more than sufficient. At the same time, partly through the enhanced tax revenue, the government could eventually transform deficits into surpluses that placed the country on a trajectory towards paying off its national debt (until Bush re-lowered taxes around the same time that he was waging multiple wars, expanding Medicare, and failing to veto any spending bills). The key is that by raising revenue, spending cuts don't need to be as draconian and harmful, something that even the conservative Ronald Reagan understood. The irony is that nowadays, Reagan would appear as more of a moderate Republican and many in his party would probably deride him for “liberal excess.” After all, while he believed in lower taxes overall, he sometimes raised taxes, both as governor of California and as president. He understood that at some point, one needs to be practical rather than ideological and examine both sides of the equation in order to make the math work in a realistic way.

Besides, theories of economic rationality can break in different ways. While one can suggest that lower taxes that return more of one's income create an incentive to work hard and invest more money, one could also argue that higher taxes that return less of one's income create an incentive to work hard and invest more money, for one isn't going to be as comfortable and complacent as would have been the case with the lower taxes. The bottom-line is that different individuals will respond in different ways, whereas prevailing economic theory with its supposedly perfect rationality implies unrealistically universal responses. To be more precise with my statement that you responded to, higher taxes on the wealthy are unlikely to affect them to the point where the economy contracts or stagnates significantly worse than is currently the case. Indeed, the Clinton years and most of the twentieth century—when the top tax rate proved much higher—provide the historical precedent. Commendable growth can occur with higher taxes on the rich; even if the growth won't necessarily be as high as it would have been with lower taxes (and we can't say for sure), it can prove more than adequate and the increased revenue resulting from the tax increases can allow the government to make more refined cuts in spending, as opposed to butchering chops.

There is basically nothing supporting the statement that the "only way" to get us on firm fiscal footing is to raise taxes on the rich, so I don't feel the need to rebut something that hasn't been demonstrated. We'd be on firm financial footing with entitlement reform, as well. That's the beast that keeps on growing. At best, taxing the rich at higher rates will fend it off for a bit, but seeing as how they're all fundamentally insolent and growing exponentially worse, reform is inevitable, and therefore the only real solution. And it comes without the error of harming business and investment that is inextricably attached to raising taxes (heh, sorry, "revenue") from the wealthy.


I said that raising taxes on the wealthy (at least in part) is the only way to attain firm fiscal footing without decimating crucial investments elsewhere, including Medicare and Social Security. I agree that we need to make adjustments to these programs ("means testing" makes sense to me, as does the elimination of the cut-off point on the SS tax) while rendering them more efficient. But with revenue enhancement (a Reagan euphemism, by the way), the entitlement reform won't need to be so severe as to hurt the beneficiaries who have paid into and really depend on these programs, especially in older age.

The idea that wealth, investment, and risk-taking is just "there" and you can kick it around and eat away at it with absolutely no reduction in them is simply not so, and creating policy based on that error would be incredibly damaging to the economy. People who create wealth should not be taken for granted.


The problem is that most of the "wealth" currently created by the country exists virtually for its own sake and is simply enjoyed by the wealthy, as opposed to some kind of broader investment that elevates overall society. The "trickle down" theory has proved fundamentally fallacious for since its institutionalization thirty years ago, the gulf between the rich and the poor has widened dramatically while the "middle class" has shrunk (and the nation's infrastructure has crumbled). Part of this process would have occurred anyway due to the invariable rise of globalization and the decline of the industrial, manufacturing base. Still, the polarization has encountered amplification via "regressive" tax policy that favors the moneyed and corporate interests that have used their wealth and influence to rig the tax code to their benefit.

Er, but he owns stock in a corporation, and his wealth will comprise an "estate" when he dies. The point being: more of the money is taxed. Some of it is taxed twice. Thus, his assertion that he pays a lower percentage in taxes than his secretary--which is his central argument--is false.


Buffett makes clear that he is referring to combined income and payroll taxes, which is a fair point of comparison. Since his secretary probably does not own stock in a corporation and her wealth will not comprise an "estate" when she dies, those matters are proverbial apples-to-oranges, hence Buffett's logical preference for an oranges-to-oranges comparison.

"They can afford it" isn't a very compelling defense. That's precisely why Buffett writes editorials like this: because he knows "hey, that guy has more money, so we should be allowed to take more" is a terrible argument for raising taxes on someone.

... Unless, of course, you just start with the arbitrary assumption and baseline that it's okay (and even good!) to take more money from people who have more just because they have it.
I might agree if the highest income tax rate was still 90% or 70% because in those cases, even though the wealthy could still "afford it" and remain wealthy, the policy wouldn't necessarily be sound. But your logic would seem to demand the elimination of the Sixteenth Amendment and the institution of a flat tax in which everyone pays the same percentage. That policy would be entirely impractical to the point of insanity, but it would satisfy the desire to not heavily tie tax rates to income levels.

I'd like to hear how "one" could make that argument, seeing as how their income tax rates are higher and the other mechanisms of corporate ownership are taxed on top of that. It seems to me that, by paying a percentage of your income, by definition your tax payments will always be in line with your wealth.


That concept provides the general foundation for tax policy, but tailoring the most fair or sensible rate is going to be a matter of discretion and debate. Certainly, one (such as Warren Buffett) could argue that the scales are not properly balanced right now, especially due to the ludicrous loopholes and structural shenanigans written into the tax code at the behest of the moneyed and corporate interests that have corrupted the political system.



And just for kicks, here's an article showing that even significantly raising taxes on the wealthy would leave us with quite a bit of debt left over:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ion-won-t-solv

The problem is spending. Programs that grow at an exponential rate cannot be paid for with taxes; taxes can only delay that day of reckoning, by definition. And while there are obvious harms and limits to how much you can tax people, we've yet to find an amount of money government cannot spend. That's why spending is the problem.
As I wrote in my previous post, I concur that there need to be adjustments in the cost efficiency of these programs. However, if a lack revenue failed to also represent part of the problem, then why have the Bush tax cuts constituted the most severe contributors to the deficit and the debt?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_864812.html

Furthermore, president after president prior to George W. Bush realized that revenue must be part of the equation: Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all raised taxes at one point or another and now Barack Obama wants to do so as well (on the wealthy). Are they all wrong while George W. Bush is right? David Stockman, a staunch fiscal conservative and Reagan's former budget director, says that while spending must diminish, taxes must increase concurrently.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/0...ams-gop-taxes/



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
WASHINGTON -News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.

Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a "payroll tax" on practically every dime they earn.

There are other differences as well, and Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy.

"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.

The debate is likely to boil up in coming weeks as a special bipartisan committee seeks big deficit reductions and weighs which tax cuts are sacrosanct.

At issue is a tax that the vast majority of workers pay, but many don't recognize because they don't read, or don't understand their pay stubs. Workers normally pay 6.2 percent of their wages toward a tax designated for Social Security. Their employer pays an equal amount, for a total of 12.4 percent per worker.

As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers' rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.

Obama cited the payroll tax in his weekend radio and Internet address Saturday, when he urged Congress to work together on measures that help the economy and create jobs. "There are things we can do right now that will mean more customers for businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes again, so families have an extra $1,000 to spend," he said.

Social Security payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker's wages. Therefore, $2,136 is the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the one-year reduction.

The great majority of Americans make less than $106,800 a year. Millions of workers pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.

The 12-month tax reduction will cost the government about $120 billion this year, and a similar amount next year if it's renewed.

That worries Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and a member of the House-Senate supercommittee tasked with finding new deficit cuts. Tax reductions, "no matter how well-intended," will push the deficit higher, making the panel's task that much harder, Camp's office said.

But Republican lawmakers haven't always worried about tax cuts increasing the deficit. They led the fight to extend the life of a much bigger tax break: the major 2001 income tax reduction enacted under Bush. It was scheduled to expire at the start of this year. Obama campaigned on a pledge to end the tax break only for the richest Americans, but solid GOP opposition forced him to back down.

Many Republicans are adamant about not raising taxes but largely silent on what it would mean to let the payroll tax break expire.

Republicans cite key differences between the two "temporary" taxes, starting with the fact that the Bush measure had a 10-year life from the start. To stimulate job growth, these lawmakers say, it's better to reduce income tax rates for people and for companies than to extend the payroll tax break.

"We don't need short-term gestures. We need long-term fundamental changes in our tax structure and our regulatory structure that people who create jobs can rely on," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., when asked about the payroll tax matter.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., "has never believed that this type of temporary tax relief is the best way to grow the economy," said spokesman Brad Dayspring.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says payroll tax reductions give the economy a short-term boost. But it says the benefit is bigger if employers get the tax break instead of, or along with, workers.

Some top Republicans have taken a wait-and-see approach, expecting the payroll tax issue to be a bargaining chip in the upcoming debt reduction talks.

Neither House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, nor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has taken a firm stand on whether to extend the one-year tax cut.

Most GOP presidential candidates also are treading lightly.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not flatly rule out an extra year for the payroll tax cut, but he "would prefer to see the payroll tax cut on the employer side" to spur job growth, his campaign said.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said Republicans will fall under increasing pressure to extend the payroll tax cut. If they refuse, he said in a recent speech, "we're going to end up in a position where we're going to raise taxes on the lowest-income Americans the day they go to work."

Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama's proposed tax cut extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax designated for Social Security could undermine that program's health and stature.

For decades the payroll tax generated more revenue than the Social Security paid out in benefits. The excess was used to fund other government operations. Last year, however, Social Security benefits began outstripping revenue from its designated sources, forcing the program to start tapping its "trust fund" of government obligations.



But their report doesn't contradict anything Buffet said. He didn't say anything about not reducing government spending, but that the rich should pay more.
Granted, most of the piece avoids any specific justification beyond the simplistic "right people have money, take more of it." But he explicitly mentions the importance of reducing the deficit, so analyzing that part of it seems fair game.



Your comments make perfect sense in terms of abstract theory and mathematical logic. However, I'm not sure that theory and logic that are immaculate on paper prove consistently accurate in human life. Paul Krugman (whatever one may think of him, I believe that he's correct on this point) has observed that much of the reason for the 2008 economic crash can be found in an unmitigated belief in the sheer rationality of economic markets. However, economic markets are influenced and in some cases run by human beings and as anyone should know, human beings are not consistently or unwaveringly rational. Therefore, there is a discrepancy that can unravel the illusion of perfectly rational economic activity.
I don't think anything I said requires that we posit perfectly rational people. If that's the standard you demand, then you can toss out basic laws of supply and demand, too, or any of the many obvious, empiric truths of economics merely because people are imperfect. But that, of course, would not be reasonable.

The market is rational in aggregate and in general. Nobody claims it is perfect, nor does it need to be. The principle being invokved here is very simple: if you lower the reward of investment, you will get less of it. I don't think this is really arguable, the non-Vulcanness of humanity notwithstanding.

You are right that for all that we know, growth and investment may have proved even higher during the Clinton years had he not raised taxes. But since speculation cannot be proven, we cannot know for sure and my point is that the growth and investment that we actually witnessed proved more than sufficient.
Then your argument has changed. You're no longer making the case that the taxes don't matter, or won't hurt business and investment, you're just saying that the decrease in business and investment (which, make no mistake, is also a decrease in employment and standard of living) is an acceptable loss given what you want to do with the money raised. But that is a very different argument.

And I'd point out that you're again reducing things to a binary state by saying the growth was "sufficient." What level of growth is sufficient, and why? Sufficient for what? Why is the drop from 4% to 3% okay, but the drop from, say, 2% to 1% not? I can't imagine there's any empirical way to demonstrate that one is dramatically different from the other. I suspect the reference to it being "sufficient" is not an economic statement, but a political one. It a statement about what you can get away with, and not a statement about what's actually best.

And your argument is ultimately narrower still, because you're arguing that it was an acceptable loss at that precise point in time. I don't need to tell you this point in time is quite different. In other words, I reject the notion that we can have growth to "spare," as if anything above a certain rate of growth is "extra." But even if I bought into this idea, we sure don't have any to spare now, and raising taxes now is the idea being put forward.

At the same time, partly through the enhanced tax revenue, the government could eventually transform deficits into surpluses that placed the country on a trajectory towards paying off its national debt (until Bush re-lowered taxes around the same time that he was waging multiple wars, expanding Medicare, and failing to veto any spending bills). The key is that by raising revenue, spending cuts don't need to be as draconian and harmful, something that even the conservative Ronald Reagan understood.
Correct, if you raise taxes, you can spend more. There's no denying that. But whether or not it's a good idea, or whether or not the lost growth and employment that results from those higher taxes is an acceptable cost, is another matter.

The irony is that nowadays, Reagan would appear as more of a moderate Republican and many in his party would probably deride him for “liberal excess.” After all, while he believed in lower taxes overall, he sometimes raised taxes, both as governor of California and as president. He understood that at some point, one needs to be practical rather than ideological and examine both sides of the equation in order to make the math work in a realistic way.
Being practical rather than ideological is precisely what I'm suggesting! I'm suggesting we think about real-world effects and what actually harms growth. Talking about whether or not the wealthy can "afford" tax raises is the opposite of practical: it is blatantly ideological. It invokes some arbitrary notion of social justice that measures taxes not based on how much they raise or what they do, but on whether or not they sufficiently burden the person being taxed.

Also, while it may be true that Reagan would appear to be something of a moderate today, it is equally true that our current President would be far outside of the Democratic mainstream just a few decades ago. Kennedy, for example, was a major tax-cutter, and FDR's stance on public sector unions and collective bargaining is the kind of thing Democrats are calling downright anti-Democratic today. Heck, the two parties have almost completely switched on interventionism and certain aspects of trade over the decades. People like to use these shifts to try to demonstrate that Republicans have drifted to the right, but they're really part of a bigger picture where both parties have changed over time.

Besides, theories of economic rationality can break in different ways. While one can suggest that lower taxes that return more of one's income create an incentive to work hard and invest more money, one could also argue that higher taxes that return less of one's income create an incentive to work hard and invest more money, for one isn't going to be as comfortable and complacent as would have been the case with the lower taxes.
I don't think one can seriously argue that. Clearly there is no incentive to work at all if taxes are, say, 100%. And clearly there is tremendous incentive if they're 0%. The logic above seems applicable right up to the point of taxing people at 99%, even though we both know such a rate would definitely not encourage business or investment at all. The gradations between the two extremes might not be perfectly proportionate, but the general principle is solid: tax something more, and you get less of it.

The above also assumes that the wealthy don't have options. But of course, they do. Higher corporate tax rates here encourage them to do business in another country. The only way to stop this sort of thing is to continually shut off every port in the storm, taxing and regulating one area after another to keep money from seeking more inviting tax climates, to the point at which you've adopted crippling policies towards trade and finance that destroy the original impetus for enacting them in the first place. These are the options: shackle the economy at every turn, or else people will have the ability to move their money, and will do so if our tax policies are sufficiently discouraging towards capital and investment.

The bottom-line is that different individuals will respond in different ways, whereas prevailing economic theory with its supposedly perfect rationality implies unrealistically universal responses.
Oh, not at all. The rationality of markets is about the aggregate. Individual people make irrational decisions every day; nothing in a free market ideology says otherwise. It simply says that this irrationality is largely evened out in aggregate, or dwarfed by the fact that people making irrational decisions in markets don't stay in markets very long. If you believe that people pay attention to and protect their money and investments, as they clearly do, then it will undeniably harm investment, business, and therefore growth.

To be more precise with my statement that you responded to, higher taxes on the wealthy are unlikely to affect them to the point where the economy contracts or stagnates significantly worse than is currently the case. Indeed, the Clinton years and most of the twentieth century—when the top tax rate proved much higher—provide the historical precedent.
This sounds like you're just repeating your initial argument about the Clinton years. I'm not sure why the above wouldn't be subject to the exact same counter I already made.

Also, with your first sentence you seem to be implying that the economy cannot get any worse than it is. I don't know why this would be. The economy can be--and has been--much worse than this in the past.

Commendable growth can occur with higher taxes on the rich; even if the growth won't necessarily be as high as it would have been with lower taxes (and we can't say for sure), it can prove more than adequate and the increased revenue resulting from the tax increases can allow the government to make more refined cuts in spending, as opposed to butchering chops.
Well, adequate for what, exactly? Adequate to make it politically viable, but that's not much of an argument that it represents a good tradeoff. But this is a start, at least. Once it's been acknowledged that raising taxes will, in fact, harm growth, investment, and employment, each person can then make the case that it's worth doing, and why. That's what the discussion should be, but of course it almost never is. Instead we get things like Buffett's editorial, or people talking about what the rich can "afford." The actual debate is almost never about the actual tradeoff and the actual benefit. And I suspect this is because, once that is the actual topic, it's much harder to make the case for higher taxes. Which is why the people who lobby for it almost invariably do so by denying it will harm growth at all.

I said that raising taxes on the wealthy (at least in part) is the only way to attain firm fiscal footing without decimating crucial investments elsewhere, including Medicare and Social Security. I agree that we need to make adjustments to these programs ("means testing" makes sense to me, as does the elimination of the cut-off point on the SS tax) while rendering them more efficient. But with revenue enhancement (a Reagan euphemism, by the way), the entitlement reform won't need to be so severe as to hurt the beneficiaries who have paid into and really depend on these programs, especially in older age.
The devil, of course, will be in the details. What is "severe"? What if what you or someone else defines as "severe" is what's necessary to make the program solvent?

I'd also point out that the kinds of reforms you mention parenthically are not the kind that fix the general issue of solvency. In fact, both of the ideas you mention are really just tax hikes. That's not going to fix the problem, it'll only delay the day we have to confront it.

The problem is that most of the "wealth" currently created by the country exists virtually for its own sake and is simply enjoyed by the wealthy, as opposed to some kind of broader investment that elevates overall society. The "trickle down" theory has proved fundamentally fallacious for since its institutionalization thirty years ago, the gulf between the rich and the poor has widened dramatically while the "middle class" has shrunk (and the nation's infrastructure has crumbled).
I don't think this is true at all. Economic growth is not just money, but goods and services, and their availability. I don't make a lot of money right now, but I live with a degree of comfort that would make me wealth a handful of decades ago. I have access to comforts and technology that the richest people in the world didn't have available to them.

I've said this in other threads, but wealth can be obtained in lots of ways. You can double your salary, or everything you buy can cost half as much. On 'net, the result is the same, but the latter has broader societal benefits and is ultimately more valuable. And that's what we've seen. The people who attempt to debunk "trickle down" economics completely fail to account for this side of the economic coin. They look at wages (rather than real wages), or salaries rather than actual standard of living.

There's also nothing about income inequality that in any way invalidates trickle down economics or supply-side economics. In fact, I've yet to hear an argument about income inequality that was not circular ("people aren't going to stand for it") or comprised only of citing the numbers and acting as if showing the disparity is the same thing as explaining why it's bad or wrong.

Buffett makes clear that he is referring to combined income and payroll taxes, which is a fair point of comparison. Since his secretary probably does not own stock in a corporation and her wealth will not comprise an "estate" when she dies, those matters are proverbial apples-to-oranges, hence Buffett's logical preference for an oranges-to-oranges comparison.
It's not a fair point of comparison at all. His argument is that rich people pay less of their income in taxes than relatively ordinary people, and that argument is false. There is no rational reason to restrict his argument to those types of taxes, except for polemical effect. In fact, the distinction is directly at odds with his conclusion about "shared sacrifice." If that's his point (and it is), there's no reason whatsoever why the type of tax would or should matter.

I might agree if the highest income tax rate was still 90% or 70% because in those cases, even though the wealthy could still "afford it" and remain wealthy, the policy wouldn't necessarily be sound. But your logic would seem to demand the elimination of the Sixteenth Amendment and the institution of a flat tax in which everyone pays the same percentage. That policy would be entirely impractical to the point of insanity, but it would satisfy the desire to not heavily tie tax rates to income levels.
I wasn't advocating a flat tax, I was simply pointing out that we shouldn't be making tax policy based only on whether or not someone can "afford" it, which is a nebulous notion and ignores the unintended consequences of such taxation.

That concept provides the general foundation for tax policy, but tailoring the most fair or sensible rate is going to be a matter of discretion and debate. Certainly, one (such as Warren Buffett) could argue that the scales are not properly balanced right now, especially due to the ludicrous loopholes and structural shenanigans written into the tax code at the behest of the moneyed and corporate interests that have corrupted the political system.
You'll have to be more specific. I hear a lot of people make reference to "loopholes" and the like, but when we get down to specifics they invariably end up being very small in the broad scheme of things. But then again, I suspect their hazy, undefined nature is precisely why we hear the word used so often. It gives politicians and demagogues a lot of wiggle-room! There's nothing politicians love more than to be able to make a forceful sounding statement that contains no substance.



WASHINGTON -News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.
Shouldn't this read "News flash: everyone who accused Republicans of being completely unwilling to support any tax at all was completely wrong"?

People who bashed the Tea Party and/or Republicans as extreme and totally unwilling to compromise have really had a bad few weeks.