Warren Buffet pays less tax then his secretary

Sean Job · 04-12-2012 03:32PM #1

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?

MJ23 · 04-12-2012 03:36PM

Than

Sauve · 04-12-2012 03:36PM

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.

Sauve · 04-12-2012 03:36PM

MJ23 wrote: »

Than

Oh fcek off.

Tombo2001 · 04-12-2012 03:38PM

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 · 04-12-2012 03:43PM

Dey tuk ur taxes!

Sean Job · 04-12-2012 03:44PM

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 · 04-12-2012 03:48PM

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 · 04-12-2012 03:48PM

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 · 04-12-2012 03:50PM

*Rubs chin*

How can this thread be about the public sector,

*Scratches head*

Bet his secretary has lots of ways...

*Got nothing*

Corkfeen · 04-12-2012 03:50PM

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

MagicMarker · 04-12-2012 03:54PM

He was shít in Díck Tracey.

Mint Sauce · 04-12-2012 03:56PM

Anyone else google Warren Buffet?

Sauve · 04-12-2012 03:57PM

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 · 04-12-2012 03:58PM

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 · 04-12-2012 04:02PM

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 · 04-12-2012 04:03PM

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 · 04-12-2012 04:18PM

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 · 04-12-2012 04:18PM

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 · 04-12-2012 04:22PM

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 · 04-12-2012 04:28PM

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 · 04-12-2012 04:30PM

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 · 04-12-2012 04:51PM

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 · 04-12-2012 04:54PM

well said!

04-12-2012 04:59PM

Sean Job wrote: »

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

Didn't know tax credits were percentages.

ebixa82 · 04-12-2012 05:00PM

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 · 04-12-2012 05:13PM

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 · 04-12-2012 06:09PM

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

Jezek · 04-12-2012 06:47PM

biko wrote: »

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

Nope.

biko · 04-12-2012 06:55PM

Damn

Scanlas The 2nd · 04-12-2012 07:41PM

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.

Warren Buffet pays less tax then his secretary

Comments