[release]NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett this week showed a little more leg in his campaign to get Congress to raise taxes on the uber-rich.
In a letter to Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp Tuesday, Buffett revealed that his adjusted gross income last year was $62,855,038 and that his taxable income was $39,814,784. Buffett said he paid $15,300 in payroll taxes.
Buffett also said his federal income tax bill came to $6,923,494, or 17.4% of his taxable income -- two points he revealed in a New York Times op-ed in August urging Congress to tax the wealthy more.
Buffett provided a copy of his correspondence with Huelskamp to CNNMoney's Poppy Harlow.
He said in an interview that the roughly $23 million difference between his AGI and taxable income was due largely to deductions he took for charitable giving and local taxes.
Two key reasons he only paid 17.4%, however, is because a lot of his income came from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate than wages, and because payroll taxes are assessed only on the first $106,800 of wages.
In his letter, Buffett also repeated his offer to release his full tax return if other super-wealthy taxpayers -- like News Corp. (NWSA, Fortune 500) chief Rupert Murdoch -- did the same.
Buffett Rule: Not so simple "If you could get other ultra-rich Americans to publish their returns along with mine, that would be very useful to the tax dialogue and intelligent reform," Buffett wrote.
Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA, Fortune 500), also aimed to dispel any doubts that he has not been recounting his income figures accurately.
If other wealthy taxpayers offered to release their returns, Buffett said, he would agree to "a pre-release wager" with anyone for any sum "that the figures in my return will be exactly those used in my op-ed piece."
After the release of the letters, Huelskamp said that Buffett's disclosure, while it may be accurate, is incomplete.
"By sheltering millions of dollars of income from taxation through charitable giving, Mr. Buffett demonstrates that he doesn't trust Washington with his own money either," Huelskamp told CNNMoney.
Huelskamp originally asked Buffett to release his federal tax return because "it is my firm belief that if your name is lent to a national policy and your story the justification for a major overhaul of the tax code, then the American people have a right to see the evidence guiding that policy."
The rule would ensure that people making more than $1 million pay a higher percentage of their income in federal income and payroll taxes than those who make less.
That would be a lot less straightforward than it sounds, however.
And just in terms of averages, the current tax system already satisfies the Buffett Rule. Americans on average pay 16% of their total income in federal income and payroll taxes, while millionaires pay an average of 20.1%, according to the Tax Policy Center.[/release]
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/news/economy/buffett_taxes_2010/index.htm[/url]
People must have been very hungry.
...Oh, Warren Buffett.
[QUOTE=Elgar;32746370]People must have been very hungry.
...Oh, Warren Buffett.[/QUOTE]
Thats what i thought.
thats a lot of money
[QUOTE=Elgar;32746370]People must have been very hungry.
...Oh, Warren Buffett.[/QUOTE]
What?
It would take me 6200 years just to make that much with my current job.
20%-25% sounds fair to me. I'm pretty sure that's more than most of us pay. As long as they don't have to pay anywhere near 50% of what they make. I'd hate for anyone to have to give half of their income away.
For a sec there I though a New York all you can eat buffet made 62 million dollars.
and what they don't report is how much of that he donated to charities, etc.
ugh
Holy fuck. That's 2$ PER SECOND. He makes 60000$ every single night while sleeping.
I'm sure he could live with 50% of that.
[QUOTE=Chickens!;32746617]For a sec there I though a New York all you can eat buffet made 62 million dollars.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, the title made me very hungry
[QUOTE=Robber;32746671]Holy fuck. That's 2$ PER SECOND. He makes 60000$ every single night while sleeping.
[b]I'm sure he could live with 50% of that.[/b][/QUOTE]
I really don't like this mindset of people saying "he has it, so let's take it"
I understand raising taxes on the rich, but you really expose how greedy and self serving you are when your argument for raising taxes is "HEY THAT GUY HAS LOTS OF MONEY, GIVE IT TO ME".
Whether or not you support raising taxes on the rich, they still earned that money, and they still pay their fair share. If you want them to pay a higher share that's totally understandable and I'm not debating whether or not the taxes should be raised, all I'm saying is that whenever someone uses that argument, they sound like a twat.
You probably have some money too, give me $10, I'm sure you aren't using it.
You'll be able to live without that $10 right? Thanks, then give it to me.
Give me that $10 that you earned. Why? Oh, because I say so, and you can live without it.
The title fooled me into believing this had anything to do with thé Jimmy Buffett.
guess not.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32746615]20%-25% sounds fair to me. I'm pretty sure that's more than most of us pay. As long as they don't have to pay anywhere near 50% of what they make. I'd hate for anyone to have to give half of their income away.[/QUOTE]
Back in the old day the tax rate was way over 50% (it even hit 90% once) and guess what? The economy was in the best shape it's ever been.
[QUOTE=Soda;32746637]and what they don't report is how much of that he donated to charities, etc.
ugh[/QUOTE] Buffett is actually one of the good guys here, he wants to be taxes more.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;32746847]Back in the old day the tax rate was way over 50% (it even hit 90% once) and guess what? The economy was in the best shape it's ever been.
Buffett is actually one of the good guys here, he wants to be taxes more.[/QUOTE]
There were other huge contributing factors to the economic success during those times, it was a lot more than tax rates alone that brought us a great economy.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32746749]I really don't like this mindset of people saying "he has it, so let's take it"
I understand raising taxes on the rich, but you really expose how greedy and self serving you are when your argument for raising taxes is "HEY THAT GUY HAS LOTS OF MONEY, GIVE IT TO ME".
Whether or not you support raising taxes on the rich, they still earned that money, and they still pay their fair share. If you want them to pay a higher share that's totally understandable and I'm not debating whether or not the taxes should be raised, all I'm saying is that whenever someone uses that argument, they sound like a twat.
You probably have some money too, give me $10, I'm sure you aren't using it.
You'll be able to live without that $10 right? Thanks, then give it to me.
Give me that $10 that you earned. Why? Oh, because I say so, and you can live without it.[/QUOTE]Rich people in America are spoilt, they pay way lower taxes than any other OECD-country. It's ridicoulus that they get these tax cuts while everyone else has to suffer from budget cuts that affect schools, hospitals, roads etc. Note that even Buffett himself wants the taxes for rich people to be raised.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32746615]20%-25% sounds fair to me. I'm pretty sure that's more than most of us pay. As long as they don't have to pay anywhere near 50% of what they make. I'd hate for anyone to have to give half of their income away.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that they don't pay taxes on most of their money? They make sure to categorize their money differently to avoid it being taxed, thus their big whopping tax percentages reap nothing.
There's a reason why we use to have a 90% tax on the rich.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32747056]Rich people in America are spoilt, they pay way lower taxes than any other OECD-country. It's ridicoulus that they get these tax cuts while everyone else has to suffer from budget cuts that affect schools, hospitals, roads etc. Note that even Buffett himself wants the taxes for rich people to be raised.[/QUOTE]
I don't really care what other countries pay. And you aren't spoilt just because you make a lot of money, it means somewhere down the line someone knew what they were doing.
I'd rather we find a way to make fair taxes work for us then fall in line with everyone else. The article makes it sound like Buffet want's a 20-30% total tax payout for the rich, fine with me, they dont deserve to give away half of it though.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32747056]Rich people in America are spoilt, they pay way lower taxes than any other OECD-country. It's ridicoulus that they get these tax cuts while everyone else has to suffer from budget cuts that affect schools, hospitals, roads etc. Note that even Buffett himself wants the taxes for rich people to be raised.[/QUOTE]
My point isn't whether or not it's ok to raise taxes on the rich, my point is that your argument is extremely greedy.
And yes, [i]Warren Buffet[/i] wants to be taxed. Warren Buffet doesn't speak for the entire population of rich people, so I don't see that as much of an argument either.
I [b]hate[/b] these people. I agree that they are rich, spoiled cunts. But I also believe in the principle that these rich spoiled fucks earned their money in one way or another, and that saying "They can live without it" is a horrible argument.
And you guys keep talking about the rich as if they pay LESS taxes than the average working person, despite the fact that even after their tax cuts, they're paying huge amounts of money for their taxes.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32747153]My point isn't whether or not it's ok to raise taxes on the rich, my point is that your argument is extremely greedy.
And yes, [i]Warren Buffet[/i] wants to be taxed. Warren Buffet doesn't speak for the entire population of rich people, so I don't see that as much of an argument either.
I [b]hate[/b] these people. I agree that they are rich, spoiled cunts. But I also believe in the principle that these rich spoiled fucks earned their money in one way or another, and that saying "They can live without it" is a horrible argument.
And you guys keep talking about the rich as if they pay LESS taxes than the average working person, despite the fact that even after their tax cuts, they're paying huge amounts of money for their taxes.[/QUOTE]
Buuuuuut it's all about the PERCENTAGES! Who gives a fuck how much they actually pay?! :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32747153]My point isn't whether or not it's ok to raise taxes on the rich, my point is that your argument is extremely greedy.
And yes, [i]Warren Buffet[/i] wants to be taxed. Warren Buffet doesn't speak for the entire population of rich people, so I don't see that as much of an argument either.
I [b]hate[/b] these people. I agree that they are rich, spoiled cunts. But I also believe in the principle that these rich spoiled fucks earned their money in one way or another, and that saying "They can live without it" is a horrible argument.
And you guys keep talking about the rich as if they pay LESS taxes than the average working person, despite the fact that even after their tax cuts, they're paying huge amounts of money for their taxes.[/QUOTE]
And that's why you have the income equality of a third world country. Rich people are favoured over everyone else. The fact that they can live without an extra million is very relevant, because a regular worker might be hugely disadvantaged by a cut in the budget whereas the rich aren't affected by it at all (at least not directly).
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32747248]And that's why you have the income equality of a third world country. Rich people are favoured over everyone else. The fact that they can live without an extra million is very relevant, because a regular worker might be hugely disadvantaged by a cut in the budget whereas the rich aren't affected by it at all (at least not directly).[/QUOTE]
You're just recycling the same "HE HAS MONEY SO GIVE ME IT" argument over and over again.
The only really moving argument I've heard is that the rich don't pay their full taxes because of loopholes.
So then lets close all the loopholes, rather than raise the tax rate?
I'm all for making the rich pay what they're billed, I just don't think raising the bill is the right way to go.
It seems like the biggest issue is that the ultra wealthy are able to avoid paying their taxes, or at least large parts, so lets just deal with the issues that let them essentially get away with fraud, rather than raise the tax rate in anticipation of their cheating.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32747285]You're just recycling the same "HE HAS MONEY SO GIVE ME IT" argument over and over again.[/QUOTE]Everyone pays taxes, not just the rich, do you really think the money from the rich are going directly into my pockets?
Besides, closing loopholes is practically raising the taxes anyway.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32747354]Everyone pays taxes, not just the rich, do you really think the money from the rich are going directly into my pockets?
Besides, closing loopholes is practically raising the taxes anyway.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, everyone does pay taxes, I don't see how that's a valid argument as to taking even MORE money away from people that they've earned.
Principally I don't like the prospect of taxes. I think that what you earn is yours, but obviously I support taxation because a country can't function without it. I understand the necessity of taxation, but I think there are a LOT of other things that can be done to generate revenue besides taking the money that people have earned away.
And what is with this last sentence?
"Besides, closing loopholes is practically raising the taxes anyway."
So what, we should just raise the tax rate but let the loopholes stand so they continue to pay infinitely lower amounts than they are charged? It seems like closing loopholes would be the first logical step towards fixing the tax system.
Here I was thinking this was about [i]Jimmy[/i] Buffett.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32747455]Yeah, everyone does pay taxes, I don't see how that's a valid argument as to taking even MORE money away from people that they've earned.
Principally I don't like the prospect of taxes. I think that what you earn is yours, but obviously I support taxation because a country can't function without it. I understand the necessity of taxation, but I think there are a LOT of other things that can be done to generate revenue besides taking the money that people have earned away.
And what is with this last sentence?
"Besides, closing loopholes is practically raising the taxes anyway."
So what, we should just raise the tax rate but let the loopholes stand so they continue to pay infinitely lower amounts than they are charged? It seems like closing loopholes would be the first logical step towards fixing the tax system.[/QUOTE]
Why should a man that earns a hundred million dollars a year pay the same amount, or be taxed the same % as me, a man who earns 30k-60k a year.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;32747498]Why should a man that earns a hundred million dollars a year pay the same amount, or be taxed the same % as me, a man who earns 30k-60k a year.[/QUOTE]
Even though I don't necessarily support taxing them the same amount:
Because they still pay more? 10% of $100,000,000 is a lot more than 10% of $60,000
Wow all that money and he paid just that in taxes.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;32747498]Why should a man that earns a hundred million dollars a year pay the same amount, or be taxed the same % as me, a man who earns 30k-60k a year.[/QUOTE]
Why should a man more successful than you be penalized for his success?
See, it sounds bad when I put it like that.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32747455]
"Besides, closing loopholes is practically raising the taxes anyway."
So what, we should just raise the tax rate but let the loopholes stand so they continue to pay infinitely lower amounts than they are charged? It seems like closing loopholes would be the first logical step towards fixing the tax system.[/QUOTE]
Judging from the rest of his posts I think he's for closing loopholes
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.