I'll agree to discuss this from your points of view, and politely ask that in return someone (anyone) acknowledge the points that I am trying to communicate.
...
Glumping me together with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for the purposes of expecting 'us' to give 99% of our pie back.
I don't know how anybody who would put me and lots of other regular Joe's into the Gates/Buffet league could possess enough basic intelligence to know when to wipe their ass.
As I have said before, if those truly in need of a safety net were not obscured by throngs of irresponsible, selfish, immediate-gratification seeking spoiled rotten kids who never fully developed into adults, then we would be discussing other issues right now.
I am not sure if it is you or I that is mistaken, but it seems to me that no one has lumped you in with the Gates and Buffetts; and indeed no one (least of all Mr. Buffett) proposes taking away 99% of
anyone's money, and in fact is in favor of equalizing things such that while
he pays more, you would pay the same amount or less (assuming you make 250k or less per year)
Here's what I understand as to your point - Mr. Buffett is free to donate as much of his wealth as he chooses, but he should not play fast and loose with your money, especially after he has passed through the bracket that you are in, and is now in a place where his opinion will have little affect on his financial well-being.
Is that about right?
I hope so - now here is my take on Mr. Buffett's position -
he agrees with you!His point, I believe, is that anyone who makes under 20K and over 200K both pay around 15-25% of their income in taxes, in total; but in between it can range as high as 50-60% - and that is not right!
It was my impression that he suggested that especially those above 1 million or so, or maybe half that, ought to be paying a percentage of their income closer to what people in the 50k-75k category pay - in that "middle" bracket, the federal alone is as much as 50%, when you count the employer's side of FICA - the top rate occurs around 65K/yr, with a 34% marginal rate + 15.2% FICA - and that's not even counting State and local! (my numbers are what I recall from a few years ago, it may be somewhat less now)
I'm pretty sure he also said *everyone* ought to be taxed at the same rate, around 35% or less (presumably with the low end having some kind of floor - perhaps around 20-30k)... my best guess as to what this would mean in tax changes, would be that those over a million a year would pay about double what they do now, those over 250k would pay maybe 25-50% more, those from 100k-250k would likely pay about the same or less, and those under 100k would pay considerably less!
Admittedly I am making a best guess that may not be correct - but what assumptions are you making? I am quite certain that what he is proposing is significantly less than 50%, which is what most of us are paying now, in total. (I do recall him saying that the pre-Reagan days of 40% was OK with him, I think that was around 10-20 years ago when he said it...)
Incidentally, if you've never seen him actually describing his philosophy on life as well as investing, you should check this out:
Warren Buffett address to MBA students in 1998 He is quite funny, as well as a great motivational speaker in my opinion! His description of what he calls "the ovarian lottery" as his answer to the final question (at 1hr 22min in, or so) is both funny and sobering...
It doesn't address anything about taxation, but it certainly does explain his attitude towards value investing, and his philosophy of life...
