Warren Buffet pays less tax then his secretary

Sean Job

Warren Buffet pays less tax then his secretary in percentage terms,mainly because his wealth is from passive sources and not salary.

Would the same be true here?

If you have accumlated enough wealth such that you passively earn through capital gains are you better off taxwise then somebody who is paid to work?

Sauve

Sean Job wrote: »

If you have accumlated enough wealth such that you passively earn through capital gains are you better off taxwise then somebody who is paid to work?

Clearly.
/thread.

MJ23

Than

Sauve

MJ23 wrote: »

Than

Oh fcek off.

Tombo2001

misleading title there OP.

He pays a million times more tax than his secretary.

However as a % of income he pays less; as you point out in your commentary.

Yes the same is true here.

When you reach a certain level of wealth you can avail of what is known as "the off-shore vehicle", the foundation stone on which Swiss banks are built.

CruelCoin

Dey tuk ur taxes!

Sean Job

Sauve wrote: »

Clearly.
/thread.

So why ideologically do we have a situation where socialists in this country are fighting attempts to place more taxes on wealth and instead favour placing the tax burden ever further on Paye income?

Simultaneously they are the main protector of entitlement rights for the rich?

Surely a socialist wants a slashing of VAT, a massive rise in capital gains, a tax on property , and targetting of resources to the poorest quartile.

A rich person in this country should vote socialist - very confusing.

brimal

Does Buffet's secretary provide jobs to tens of thousands of Americans?

Not saying he shouldn't be paying more taxes, but you have to look at the bigger picture. Buffet does more for the economy than just paying tax on his income.

Skylinehead

Sean Job wrote: »

Warren Buffet pays less tax then his secretary in percentage terms,mainly because his wealth is from passive sources and not salary.

Would the same be true here?

If you have accumlated enough wealth such that you passively earn through capital gains are you better off taxwise then somebody who is paid to work?

Thread title is wrong, he pays much more tax than his secretary. And I don't really care, seeing as he's one of the biggest philanthropists the world has ever seen.

Fromthetrees

*Rubs chin*

How can this thread be about the public sector,

*Scratches head*

Bet his secretary has lots of ways...

*Got nothing*

Corkfeen

Erm, to be fair on Warren he is calling for greater taxation on the wealthy......

MagicMarker

He was shít in Díck Tracey.

Mint Sauce

Anyone else google Warren Buffet?

Sauve

Sean Job wrote: »

So why ideologically do we have a situation where socialists in this country are fighting attempts to place more taxes on wealth and instead favour placing the tax burden ever further on Paye income?

Simultaneously they are the main protector of entitlement rights for the rich?

Surely a socialist wants a slashing of VAT, a massive rise in capital gains, a tax on property , and targetting of resources to the poorest quartile.

A rich person in this country should vote socialist - very confusing.

Sound.

ceegee

Worth pointing out that Buffet's secretary earns over 200,000 a year to place her in that tax bracket, she's not exactly being put on the breadline by those tax rates.

Seaneh

Buffet does actually pay less tax on his earnings than his secretary, not just as a percentage of earnings, but in total.
He has said so several times in the media himself. He uses it to point out the imbalance of the tax system in the US and to show his support on a higher rate of tax on the wealthy.

That said, his secretary makes about €225k a year, so she's not exactly broke.

Wompa1

mmm...wasn't Warren Buffet also the one who pointed out that he paid a lower percentage than his secretary? I'm pretty sure in an interview he mentioned it and said how he felt it was wrong. And also in fairness to the guy even if he's not paying the same percentage, he has signed up to the Bill Gates Foundation to donate his fortune.

Sean Job

Its seems odd to me that the left here is pursing greater tax on incomes when the really rich rely a lot less on income then they do on capital gains, and other passive sources of wealth accumulation.

ceegee

Seaneh wrote: »

Buffet does actually pay less tax on his earnings than his secretary, not just as a percentage of earnings, but in total.
He has said so several times in the media himself. He uses it to point out the imbalance of the tax system in the US and to show his support on a higher rate of tax on the wealthy.

That said, his secretary makes about €225k a year, so she's not exactly broke.

Buffet paid $6,938,744 in tax in 2010. Dont think she paid that much.

kippy

ceegee wrote: »

Buffet paid $6,938,744 in tax in 2010. Dont think she paid that much.

I wish I paid that much in tax.

Corkfeen

Sean Job wrote: »

Its seems odd to me that the left here is pursing greater tax on incomes when the really rich rely a lot less on income then they do on capital gains, and other passive sources of wealth accumulation.

Did you start the topic to make generalisations? I'm in favour of greater taxation on the megarich, that wouldn't be limited to income tax........ In fact Buffett is in favour of greater capital gains tax as well. He doesn't have any qualms with heavy taxation of the rich.

“Let’s forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if -- gasp -- capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased,” Buffett wrote. “Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-26/buffett-mocks-norquist-idea-on-taxes-thwarting-investment.html

Edit: I now understand the topic at hand to an extent, it was entirely unclear up until later posts though.......

Sean Job

ceegee wrote: »

Buffet paid $6,938,744 in tax in 2010. Dont think she paid that much.

Leave aside the nominal amounts because only percentages apply when talking about taxes.

In this country under the labour party proposals the secretary would see a higher percentage tax rise because it was money paid to her then captain of industry buffet because it was earned passively through investments.

Furious_George

Sean Job wrote: »

In this country under the labour party proposals the secretary would see a higher percentage tax rise because it was money paid to her then captain of industry buffet because it was earned passively through investments.

Translation

In this country, under the labour parties proposals, the secretary would see a higher percentage tax rise than captain of industry Buffet. The labour party propose a larger increase in income tax rates than capital gains tax rates. This will affect the secretary more than Buffet, in percentage terms, as a larger portion of Buffets income is earned passively through investments.

Sean Job

well said!

Sean Job

Sean Job wrote: »

Leave aside the nominal amounts because only percentages apply when talking about taxes.

Didn't know tax credits were percentages.

ebixa82

Warren Buffett has signed up to give all but 1% of his 44 BILLION DOLLAR fortune to charity when he dies.

Who cares if he doesn't pay tax? Whatever he doesn't give is going to charity anyways!

Sean Job

ebixa82 wrote: »

Warren Buffett has signed up to give all but 1% of his 44 BILLION DOLLAR fortune to charity when he dies.

Who cares if he doesn't pay tax? Whatever he doesn't give is going to charity anyways!

The use of Warren Buffet's situation is a reference to his campaign in the USA to have an increase in capital gains tax so that the gap between it and Income taxes is reduced.

Its not about the man personally.

Im drawing the comparison to Ireland where the main socialist leaning party wants to increase the gap between capital gains and income by means of USC.

This seems at odds with the more socialist/liberal agenda in the USA and seems ideological illogical for a socialist party.

biko

I wonder if anyone ever calls him Warren Bucket by mistake.

Jezek

biko wrote: »

I wonder if anyone ever calls him Warren Bucket by mistake.

Nope.

biko

Damn

Scanlas The 2nd

tim_sims wrote: »

warren buffett seems like a good egg , he has stated on more than one occasion that their is class warfare in america and that we ( his income level ) are winning

he,s called for higher taxes on the super wealthy

america is a funny place , most irish people ( and europeans in general ) of modest income would like to see the ubber wealthy taxed till they couldnt walk , americans on the other hand have an almost masochistic view , working stiffs always seem at the ready to take pain so as donald trump doesnt have to

No it's not a masochist view. They want to live in a society were people are rewarded for giving value to society and succeeding financially. They want hard work, innovation and efficiency rewarded as that benefits the economy and provides jobs.

The truly masochist view for someone who works hard to succeed financially is to not want to see any reward for that hard work.

Did you ever wonder why Ireland was and still is a "rip off" compared to say America?

We don't manage resources as efficiently as in America, that's why stuff is so much cheaper on average. Not rewarding " value givers" wastes the resource we have in people.

juan.kerr

Misleading thread title

franktheplank

juan.kerr wrote: »

Misleading thread title

Here, here. Just because some schmuck has a really rich secretary why we all down on him?

dttq

The very same sort to publicly broadcast how charitable they are. A bit like the "Im worth $300 billion in net worth John D Rockafellar, and pay my factory workers peanuts for all their toil.......BUT I'm a good man...:.:I donate a few million toward my charity every year."

Scary thing this, many idiot voters in the US will vote with a passion in order to keep these rich folk as rich and as tax free as possible

Aidric

One of my personal heroes. His biography 'The Snowball:Warren Buffett and the Business of Life' by Alice Schroeder is well worth reading, just give yourself some time.

M cebee

MagicMarker wrote: »

He was shít in Díck Tracey.

warren buffet famous philanderer

this is warren buffet important philanthropist

derfderf

tim_sims wrote: »

warren buffett seems like a good egg , he has stated on more than one occasion that their is class warfare in america and that we ( his income level ) are winning

he,s called for higher taxes on the super wealthy

america is a funny place , most irish people ( and europeans in general ) of modest income would like to see the ubber wealthy taxed till they couldnt walk , americans on the other hand have an almost masochistic view , working stiffs always seem at the ready to take pain so as donald trump doesnt have to

I find it stranger that the really poor states seem to be the ones that mostly support the Republicans and this type of taxation.

Fighting Irish

OP is jealous cos he's probably on the dole

AlmightyCushion

Will people stop saying buffet, I'm fecking starving here.

Pottler

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Will people stop saying buffet, I'm fecking starving here.

Worse again, it's an "all you can eat, cheap" Buffet.

Donnielighto

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

No it's not a masochist view. They want to live in a society were people are rewarded for giving value to society and succeeding financially. They want hard work, innovation and efficiency rewarded as that benefits the economy and provides jobs.

The truly masochist view for someone who works hard to succeed financially is to not want to see any reward for that hard work.

Did you ever wonder why Ireland was and still is a "rip off" compared to say America?

We don't manage resources as efficiently as in America, that's why stuff is so much cheaper on average. Not rewarding " value givers" wastes the resource we have in people.

You want services and protection provided by the state, then pay for it. The state would have those who can pay to do it.

kowloon

Corkfeen wrote: »

Erm, to be fair on Warren he is calling for greater taxation on the wealthy......

This is true, and he has pointed out that he pays less tax, proportionately, than his employees to support this.

Donnielighto

Pottler wrote: »

Worse again, it's an "all you can eat, cheap" Buffet.

Warren Buffet, you pronounce the t
All you can eat buffet, "buffay"

Capt'n Midnight

brimal wrote: »

Does Buffet's secretary provide jobs to tens of thousands of Americans?

Not saying he shouldn't be paying more taxes, but you have to look at the bigger picture. Buffet does more for the economy than just paying tax on his income.

Yes he provides jobs.

And if his tax breaks meant only a few dollars from each employee then it wouldn't be a problem

The problem is that the tax breaks for the super rich


Look up stats on how the wealth distribution or income of the super-rich has compared to middle income / workers over the last 40 years.

It's obscene.

There is a saying that a rising tide lifts all boats. And when everyone sees a better future social cohesion isn't that big of a problem.


At present in the US and here many people don't see the future as being better than the past. But most of the super-rich have accumulated wealth or control recently. The top 400 have declared incomes 5.3 times what they were in 1992.

By comparison here http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/bestprice/guinnessindex.htm the average income here has gone up 1.9 times since 1992 , and most of that would have been eaten by inflation



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-luz/housing-bubble_b_1612174.html

Americans are producing more but earning less. Real wages for the bottom 60% of wage earners has been flat to declining for the past 40 years.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-06-20-productivity_wages_graph-thumb.gif



http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

It's even more revealing to compare the actual rates of increase of the salaries of CEOs and ordinary workers; from 1990 to 2005, CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained a scant 4.3%. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage actually declined by 9.3%, when inflation is taken into account.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

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.
...
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.)

some numbers

if in 2008 the top 400 richest people had paid 29.2% tax instead of 21.5% tax on their $90.9Bn it would have raised an extra $7Bn
- the same amount of tax paid by 19 million taxpayers in the lowest quintile ( $18,400 @ 2.0% )


http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/18/the-rise-of-the-hints-high-income-no-taxes/?mod=e2tw

According to an article by Tom Herman in The Fiscal Times, more than 10,000 Americans who earned more than $200,000 in 2007 paid no income taxes to the U.S. government.

UCDVet

So wait, you mean Warren Buffet actually paid many, many, many times more in taxes than his secretary?

When people express the costs of goods and/or services; they do so in absolute terms. Nobody says, 'I picked up a new TV - only cost me 2.5% of my annual gross income!'

Except when they are trying to spin something.

buck65

Aidric wrote: »

One of my personal heroes. His biography 'The Snowball:Warren Buffett and the Business of Life' by Alice Schroeder is well worth reading, just give yourself some time.

Hear hear surprisingly easy read.

Love Warren! down with the begrudgers.

Pottler

Donnielighto wrote: »

Warren Buffet, you pronounce the t
All you can eat buffet, "buffay"

Thanks. Read his bio? I have. Very intereating reed.



you can now have sexy-time fixing that as well.

I'm no lefty but for the cool libertarians could anyone explain how exactly the interest on the billions that Buffet has sitting in accounts doing nothing but earning interest create any jobs anywhere?

UCDVet

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm no lefty but for the cool libertarians could anyone explain how exactly the interest on the billions that Buffet has sitting in accounts doing nothing but earning interest create any jobs anywhere?

He almost certainly doesn't have billions just sitting in a bank somewhere; even still, when you put money into a bank the bank doesn't just keep it in a safe. The bank does stuff with it, things like lending money to businesses, or people who want to buy houses or cars.

When you have 10 euro in a bank, it's not really doing a lot. When you have 10 million euro in a bank, it's doing a lot.

Indirectly, having money sitting in a bank account somewhere employees a lot of people. The people at the bank office, the people who manage the bank's investments, the people who are able to get loans from a bank to do things; like start businesses or expand businesses, all hire people. Students often get loans that make it possible for them to go to school which helps keep professors and university staff employed. Without mortgages many people wouldn't be able to buy houses, and there's a whole industry of jobs around house buying. People who show/list houses, contractors who repair houses, movers who help people move in, inspectors who help in determining if the house has problems. Same with auto-loans and the auto industry.

Of course, in Buffet's case things are different. He's built up/ran a large company that directly employed a whole bunch of people and even legally owns a bunch of other companies that directly employ tons of people. He's basically got a small army of people that work for him in one sense or another.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Who is warren buffet? Actually I don't really care.

UCDVet

CJC999 wrote: »

Who is warren buffet? Actually I don't really care.

You cared enough to come in here and tell us you didn't care? I'd like to have buy you a drink sometime.