Higher income taxes, which is what Buffet is referring to, would not impact him significantly because he’s arranges his investments such that income is kind of incidental though not irrelevant. His net worth means that even very low dividend or interest rates produce what we would consider (based on our net worths) very substantial income. The capital gains that would result from managing the investments makes up a high proportion of that income and can’t be avoided except, pretty much, by going static and not changing any investment.

I think he would be much less approving of a wealth tax because such a tax would make many types of investments very problematic. The old “land rich, cash poor” adage would start to apply where his investments would then have to throw off enough cash to pay income and wealth taxes. There would certainly be an equilibrium or relatively “ideal” mix of investments that would be optimal to such a situation but getting there, for him and most everyone else would likely be costly.

Like others have stated here…PUT UP or SHUT UP!

This fool should pay his back taxes first before he starts screaming to raise it on others. Why do people not bring this up during the interviews?

watertown on November 28, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Because the media is in charge of the microphone and calling him out on his taxes doesn’t support the narrative.

etting really tired of Buffett talking about the need to raise taxes on more people, while he sits on about a billion dollars of back taxes.

If I had my druthers, any time Buffett started in on his “raise taxes on the wealthy,” he would be immediately met with, “pay your taxes before you talk about what I should pay. Until then, shut up.”

tom on November 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I’d also like to see a comparison of what he pays prior to the tax increase and then after.

verbaluce on November 28, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Go read Erika’s latest thread.
Maybe you’ll learn something.

I also understand that taxes on investment income is NOT intended to encourage people to invest less.
verbaluce on November 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

I said – “intent is irrelevent”.
Why do you refuse to answer a simple question? (rhetorical question – you’re a lib so you can’t/won’t answer straight questions)
When taxes are increased on a particular product or activity, is consumption of said product or participation in said activity reduced or not? Simple yes or no.
The intent is irrelevant – does this happen or not?

Since you don’t seem to understand the economics involved, I can try to explain it for you, but I can’t comprehend it for you.
If the taxes go up for any particular activity – capital gains, dividends, wage income, etc, the wealthy will find ways to circumvent those increased taxes. They may invest less, or they may invest more in tax free bonds or other tax shelters, or they may invest more overseas, or they may defer earnings in some way – hoping eventually the rates will change again. But they will find a way to get out of paying those taxes. That’s what they pay their lawyers and accountants for. Why do you think your hero Buffet has been paying his lawyers to fight the IRS over the last 10 years of taxes on Berkshire-Hathaway? He’s the ultimate “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrit – as are nearly all liberals.

tom on November 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Exactly.

Hey Warren… does your company still owe about a billion dollars in back taxes? Thought so. Shut up.

The intent is irrelevant. Does increasing the tax rate on things cause a reduction in the consumption of those things? Yes or No. It either has that effect or it doesn’t – intent means nothing.
If yes, then increasing taxes on wealth generation will negatively impact wealth generation.
If no, then all those other taxes libs push will NOT do what the libs intend for them to do.
dentarthurdent on November 28, 2012 at 5:46 PM

You are wrongly equating different scenarios and then asking ‘Yes or No?’.
Also both in the orginal post and in your comment the ‘intent’ of the taxes is raised.
Income tax is intended to raise revenue. The intent is the same at 35% or 39%.
What you are arguing is that an investor will lose the incentive to invest and seek profit at the higher bracket.
What will he/she alternately do here?

If I had my druthers, any time Buffett started in on his “raise taxes on the wealthy,” he would be immediately met with, “pay your taxes before you talk about what I should pay. Until then, shut up.”

rokemronnie on November 28, 2012 at 6:15 PM

I object to the $250k home value threshold – that hits me. Make that one $1M.
I would add sports teams/events to the list for the extra 20% tax. See what happens when all those left wing NFL, MLB, NHL, etc owners and players have to cough up an extra chunk of taxes.

Thanks a lot!

I now have probably 2 hours of work cleaning all the Coke® from my monitor and keyboard.

belad on November 28, 2012 at 6:14 PM

LOL.
Call Barry. Maybe you can get a free obammacomputer to replace it….