Blogs » Politcs Plus » Fundamental differences



Warren Buffett has a wonderful column in the New York Times called "Stop Coddling the Super Rich" even thou he is one of the super rich He said some leaders in Washington have been calling for a shared sacrifice, but neither he nor his mega rich friends have been asked.

Mr. Buffett, said as an investment manager, he earns billions but classifies his income as" carried interest" thereby it gets taxed at 15%. He said that last year he paid only 17.4% of his taxable income, which included payroll tax. He said if you make money with money, you're likely to pay a lower rate, whereas a wage earner will pay a higher rate for making more money.

Warren Buffett pointed out that last year 80% of the revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega rich pay 15% but practically nothing in payroll taxes. He also pointed out that back in the 1980s in 1990s the tax brackets were much higher, but he said" I've worked with investors for 60 years and I've yet to see anyone-not even one, not even when capital gains were at 39.9%(1976-77), shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain." In 1992, the 400 richest Americans had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid at a rate of 29.2%. In 2008, it jumped to $90.9 billion but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5%.

Last night I watched an old "60 Minute" rerun showing how corporations switch their headquarters to Finland or Switzerland by punching in a few keystrokes or removing their patent from an American safe and placing it overseas legally to avoid paying income tax to the United States of America. I went through a box of Kleenex listening to a corporate representative pleading for lower tax rates because his heart is in jobs for America. If I was that naive, I would have believed him, but it's common knowledge that corporate tax rates will not produce jobs when demand is the problem. These corporations made their fortunes off American consumers but when it came to pay taxes, they looked worldwide for the cheapest or NO income tax rates. It's also common knowledge that cheap labor and relaxed environmental laws, and regulation are the driving forces of outsourcing. The corporations bargained in good faith with labor unions (no one was holding a gun to their head), yet when the company started to lose money, or they found a better deal, they blamed the unions because of their outrageous demands for decent wages and benefits. They don't know why those workers can't live in clay huts and eat rice with sprinkles of chicken, every day. About two weeks ago I heard the CEO of General Motors come up with a good idea of agreeing to a profit-sharing deal with its unions. If the company continued to be profitable, the unions would share net profits but during down times, the unions would make concessions. President Obama is against reducing the corporate rates of companies who have headquartered overseas because it was tried in 2004, but it didn't produce any jobs. I can't give any details, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with a temporary good faith corporate rate cut with the profits being put into an infrastructure job bank. There will always be two sides on a position, I understand the need to keep costs low, keep shareholders happy, and keep ahead of the competition but it's obvious we need tax reform to discourage this practice. When just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined, we know that the top 1% is not suffering so it's not mean spirited to ask them to pay a bit more in the spirit of a " shared- sacrifice."

All were going to hear henceforth until Election Day is" I know the answers, and if you elect me, we'll get out of this financial mess." That's interesting because John McCain said on a campaign speech that he knew where bin Laden was and if he was elected president, he would deliver him. On the other side, the White House says they can't get anything done because of a divided hyper partisan government. It all amounts to political rhetoric that can be taken with a grain of salt. When did we get to a point where 14 million jobs will be created if a certain person is elected? Why can't the White House just come up with a plan and present it to the American people for their approval? The private sector will eventually produce the jobs when the demand is there but meanwhile Congress, and the White House needs to come up with plans that will pass the House of Representatives, and the Senate. My way or the hi way is not in economic solution.