Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 15, 2011
Buffet Is Lying On “Future Promises”

In an NYT OpEd Warren Buffet is begging to make him pay more taxes:

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.

The reason for Buffets ludicrous low tax rate is the very low 15% tax rate on capital gains.

It would make sense, and save a lot of problems, if the U.S. would tax capital gains at the same rate as income form a regular job.

But Buffet isn't asking for that. Instead he has an agenda which is to cut "entitlements" while only moderately rising taxes for the very rich. With regards to new super congress committee which is supposed to find a compromise on $1.5 trillion of government revenue and spending he remarks:

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

Here Buffet is just offering the false neoliberal conventional wisdom and follows the stampede into austerity. Those "future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill" do not exist. Social security has enough accumulated money and regular income to pay out what it promised for another 30 years or so. There is no need to cut it, or to increase payroll taxes, at all.

Medicare and medicaid would be fine too if they would be allowed to negotiate over, or self produce, the drugs people need. That a good socialized health care system can be run for less money than medicare is daily proven by the veteran health care system.

Social security and access to medical care are not entitlements. The people who get them have (in average) paid for them all their life. To get them is their right.

The whole op-ed is thereby a trap. "Look a billionaire asking for higher taxes. The man must be right." In reality Buffet is not offering to give up much at all. If he would asked to increase capital gain taxes to the payroll tax level it would have made a difference. But what he offers is just a undefined tax increase for very few, who will not even feel it at all, to set out a false argument to cut from many in need.

Comments

There was nothing preventing Mr Buffet from voluntarily increasing his tax contribution to match the top marginal rate paid by lesser mortals, and writing an op-ed encouraging others to follow his lead.
The fact that he chose not to do so justifies your interpretation of his motive.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 15 2011 13:05 utc | 1

The U.S. Military’s Plan for London-Like Riots

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 15 2011 13:07 utc | 2

Taxes right now are what help pay for the global empire that the US seeks to maintain. I do not wish to see anyone paying more for that. What we have now is a drive to seriously reduce the standard of living of US citizens in order to maintain the USG’s global military presence. They just don’t want to phrase it that way.

Posted by: Lysander | Aug 15 2011 13:24 utc | 3

In regard to Social Security, and in combination with what Lysander has mentioned, this is why they want to cut Social Security.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/16/social-security-ious-stashed-away-in-wva/

The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration.
It’s time to start cashing them in.
For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits – billions more each year.
Not anymore. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security, the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes — nearly $29 billion more.
Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs — in the form of Treasury bonds — which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg’s municipal offices.
Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn’t be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion-dollar deficits for years to come.

Considering the bloated, and ever expanding military budget, and the fact that those “abroad” are not philanthropists and have no inclination to pay for aging U.S. Citizens’ retirements, they have chosen to sacrifice the goose that has laid so many golden eggs. This borrowing from SS started under Reagan as a backdoor way to fund his tax cuts to the wealthy. I can guarantee you that he and Greenspan had the end of SS in mind when they embarked on this road thirty years prior. Here we are. The fix is in. SS and Medicare are done. It was ordained long ago, and now they’re cinching the deal.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Aug 15 2011 14:00 utc | 4

Folks should realize that a primary purpose of academic economics to find a justification for selfishness, ie for the very wealth to be entitled to a disproportionate share of a societies common production.
According to the US Dept.of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, from 1983 t0 2007:
1. GDP increased by $6.74 trillion.
2. Federal Debt increased by $6.45 trillion.
3. The wealth of the top 5% increased by $26 trillion.
The increase in debt was roughly one fourth (25%) of the increase in wealth appropriated by the top 5% of Americans.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/15/945128/-US-Federal-Debt-vs-The-Top-5
In regards to the “problem” of demographics, the problem is again one of unfair increase in compensation, this time the problem of paying insurance companies to find ways to avoid paying for health care. The US ALREADY pays more out of PUBLIC funds for health care than does any other country, WITHOUT receiving equivalent returns to health outcomes due to this skimming (extortion). The problem here is thinking that whether or not a good is public can be determined by human designation. It CANNOT. Whether a good is public or private is a function of the inherent characteristics of that good.
(See Paul Samuelson here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1925895 )
The relevant characteristic is the nature of multiple use. In the case of an apple, the second person to eat a specific apple finds the experience quite deteriorated; the second person to view a statue or utilize a chemical formula in a medical drug, finds the experience has not.
See also Joe Stiglitz “Knowledge as a Public Good”
http://p2pfoundation.net/Knowledge_as_a_Global_Public_Good
and this ST. Louis Post-Dispatch Oped:
“If U.S. is serious about debt, there’s a single-payer solution:
http://bit.ly/pNck7i
One of the main effects (I will not say purposes) of orthodox traditional economics was to fill this want. It was a plan for explaining to the privileged class that their position was morally right and was necessary for the welfare of society.
This is from Joan Robinson. It’s about using economics as an ideological defense of wealth. Keep in mind as you read this that it was written in 1936, not today.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.”
— Joan Robinson

Posted by: erichwwk | Aug 15 2011 14:18 utc | 5

mea culpa . First sentence should read “wealthy”, not wealth.
Also apologies for not embedding URL’s.

Posted by: erichwwk | Aug 15 2011 14:21 utc | 6

I’d add two taxes to b’s list: a STET Tax (levying 0.1% tax on financial transactions) and a Tobin Tax (0.1% on foreign currency transactions). Estimates show that this combination would raise several hundred $billion per year. Best of all, it would put the tax where the real money is–Wall Street speculation.
Ordinary people wouldn’t notice, since there is already a 3% charge on financial transactions (levied by credit card companies) and a 1% charge on most foreign currency trades.
But speculators and hedge fund managers would definitely notice, since the profits from their economically pointless gambling would be hit.
The Tobin and STET taxes should be viewed as reforming bad human behavior–just like alcohol and tobacco taxes.

Posted by: JohnH | Aug 15 2011 14:46 utc | 7

Best tax I can see was the campaign for a Robin Hood Tax in Britain. A 0.05% tax on all derivitives, currency swaps, speculations on the markets that don’t include the general public. In the UK this tiny tax on the financial industry could net 200 Billion in additional taxes a year.
Very effective and funny video about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Aug 15 2011 15:09 utc | 8

No doubt that Medicare and Medicaid are adding enormously to the US debt, but this is largely due to having a healthcare system that is being hamstrung by unnecessary administrative costs. For instance, as an employee of one of the largest medical centers in the country, I have notice that, despite having a larger and sicker patient population, most new hospital jobs aren’t being created to care for patients, but to manage their paperwork, even if most of this paperwork is done electronically.
It doesn’t take someone with expertise in cost and productivity management to realize that what’s driving up the cost of health care, more than anything else, is hospitals and other health care facilities having to hire way too many non-patient care employees to deal with umpteen number of health insurance plans. So to me, the solution to this problem is simple: gut private-insurance based health care and replace with a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system.

Posted by: Cynthia | Aug 15 2011 16:29 utc | 9

b: try as I might I cannot follow your logic here. I will also admit that I do admire Mr Buffett especially for his giving most/all of his wealth away to address poverty and health worldwide. Unlike most people of wealth he is not into acquiring ‘stuff; he simply likes making money but is comfortable in giving it all away. So to simply say he wants to hold on to more of his wealth is false. Separating this motive from the actions and what to read into them I am still at a loss how he is trying to hurt the common person. The financial mess in the US means that all Social Security has are a bunch of IOUs which won’t be very useful if the government cannot honor them. We have already seen what even suggesting small changes in the health care system does in generating opposition. Mr Buffett is a reality based person and he maybe suggesting how to deal with the reality (including the political realities) but his philanthropy belies him having motives to simply keep more of the ‘loot’ since his plan (already set in motion) is to give all the loot away.

Posted by: Khalid Shah | Aug 15 2011 19:48 utc | 10

@10….I’m touched. It brings tears to my eyes….NOT!
http://corporate-rule.co.uk/drupal/node/74

Like many of the world’s richest businessmen [1], Bill Gates believes in a special form of democracy, otherwise known as plutocracy; that is, socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Following in the footsteps of John D. Rockefeller’s and Andrew Carnegie’s charitable foundations, Gates, like most capitalists, relies upon the government to protect his business interests from competition, but is less keen on the idea of a government that acts to redistribute wealth to the wider populous.
For powerful capitalists such as Gates, the State is merely a tool to be harnessed for profit maximization, and they themselves, having acquired their wealth by exploiting and manipulating the economic system, then take it upon their own shoulders to help relieve global inequality and escalating poverty. As one might expect, their definitions of the appropriate solutions to inequality neglect to seriously challenge the primary driver of global poverty, capitalism. For the most part, the incompatibility of democracy and capitalism remains anathema. Instead, those capitalist philanthropists fund all manner of ‘solutions’ that help provide a much needed safety valve for rising resistance and dissent, while still enabling business-as-usual, albeit with a band-aid stuck over some of the more glaring inequities.
With huge, government-aided financial empires resting in the hands of a small power elite, the ability of the richest individual philanthropists to shape global society is increasing all the time, while the power of society to influence governments is being continuously undermined by many of these powerful philanthropists. This situation is problematic on a number of levels. Democratic governments rely on taxes to stabilise existing structures of governance. Yet, profiting from specifically designed legislation, billionaire capitalists are able to create massive tax-free endowments to satisfy their own particular interests. This process in effect means that vast amounts of money are regularly ‘stolen’ from the democratic citizenry, whereupon they are redistributed by unaccountable elites, who then cynically use this display of generosity to win over more supporters to the free-market principles that they themselves do their utmost to protect themselves from. Bill Gates’ Microsoft Corporation and its associated liberal foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (the largest of its kind in the world), is only one of the more visible displays of capitalism’s hypocrisy.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Aug 15 2011 22:41 utc | 11

The following is par 8 from a May, 2011 article in MRzine.
The Crisis Enters Year Five
by Richard D Wolff.
…..
Yet the tax burdens of US corporations and the richest citizens (what they actually pay) are significantly lower than in most other advanced industrial economies. Indeed, they are far lower than they were inside the US a few years ago. In the mid-1940s, the corporate income tax brought Washington 50% more than the individual income tax. Today, the corporate income tax brings the federal government 25% of what is taken from individuals. In the 1950s and 1960s, the top individual income tax rate in the United States (the rate paid by the richest citizens on all their income over about $100,000) was 91%. Today that rate is 35%, a staggering cut in the taxes on the richest Americans, far larger than the cuts in anyone else’s tax rates. Half or more of today’s federal deficits would be gone if we simply taxed the richest US citizens at the rates in effect in the 1950s and 1960s. If we also taxed corporations in relation to individuals as we did in the 1940s, the entire deficit would vanish.
…..
The title followed by the author’s name makes it Googlable.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 16 2011 4:20 utc | 12

11: I do believe that money can be a very strong motivator. However when someone is giving it away and not leaving it to their kids I cannot see how we immediately jump to them serving some evil cabal. To say that their assumptions are wrong etc. well that is your point of view and could be you are right and could be that is not the case. Time will tell. I just don’t see the link to some evil intent here, maybe a very different world view.
Someone mentioned single payer and I do believe that would be wonderful and will bring overall cost of healthcare down but it is complete naivette to suggest we are anywhere near the possibility. None of the Democrats (forget the Republicans) would even ALLOW a discussion of Single Payer as part of the Health Care discussion. We can hardly blame Mr Buffet for suggesting a solution to the problem that realizes our political mess. I just do not see any evil intention. Evil guys don’t spend their days figuring out how to give the money away.

Posted by: Khalid Shah | Aug 16 2011 5:41 utc | 13

@Khalid Shah – The financial mess in the US means that all Social Security has are a bunch of IOUs which won’t be very useful if the government cannot honor them.
Sorry, nonsense. The government CAN honor the IOUs Social Security owns. It just has to raise taxes to do so. Very simple. Buffet, suggesting that SoSec must be cut, is lying.

Posted by: b | Aug 16 2011 8:03 utc | 14

“Sorry, nonsense. The government CAN honor the IOUs Social Security owns. It just has to raise taxes to do so.”
IT JUST HAS TO RAISE TAXES. So simple. Piece of cake.
I do not think you are naive nor unaware of the political firestorm that happened in the current crisis with respect to raising taxes. So please answer, what if the Congress refuses to raise taxes, what happens to Social Security then?
“Medicare and medicaid would be fine too IF they would be allowed to negotiate over, or self produce, the drugs people need.”
But we know they won’t be allowed to negotiate, the VA example notwithstanding.
There is a book from a few years ago titled ‘Whats wrong with Kansas’ (or something like that 🙂 ) which talks of this phenomena in rural low income population consistently voting AGAINST their economic self-interest. I think the author identifies this being due to a historical belief that the rich will take care of them. It may have been true of the large barons of old (though I doubt it) but is certainly false today. Yet ‘Kansas’ and most of ‘Red America’ keeps voting against their own economic well being. The democratic party is now arguably to the ‘right’ of the British Conservative (except for a few holdouts. Dennis Kucinich comes to mind) and still being accused, and the accusation is accepted by many, of being too socialist.
This is the REALITY in US today. In this reality the bills still need to be paid somehow and that is where Mr Buffet is, in my opinion, offering a suggestion. If anyone has a workable idea on how to pass an increase in taxes through the current Congress I think there is a lot of people who would be very interested. But to say, Mr Buffet is lying all we have to do is JUST raise taxes……..

Posted by: Khalid Shah | Aug 16 2011 11:06 utc | 15

I would add the Mr Buffet uses all his capital, including political capital, very judiciously. In this case he has made a proposition that cannot be attacked by anyone (on the anti-tax side) because he has said raise my taxes. He is right that the rich (his class of rich) cannot pay for all the social security etc. but this way the cuts in social security etc. can be much more modest.
If you were to approach him with what you have written here, my guess would be that rather than debate the point, he would simply challenge you saying if you can get a comprehensive tax bill through Congress I would give you a reward of XX Millions of dollars. A short while ago someone sent me the public records of Berkshire Hathaway and how much they had paid in taxes in the past 5 years; it was more than $4 billion. The article further stated that if all US corporations paid taxes at the same level we would have a surplus national budget. In Mr Buffet you have a wrong target when it comes to taxes.

Posted by: Khalid Shah | Aug 16 2011 12:59 utc | 16

Karl’s take on Buffett over at the Market Ticker:
Dear Mr Buffett, bite me
Personally, having met a few billionaires in my time, I’d have to say they are neither ‘nice’ nor very concerned with what happens to po’folk as long as they can keep rakin’ it in.

Posted by: DaveS | Aug 16 2011 13:13 utc | 17

Thousands of Syrians rounded up and isolated at Latakia stadium. Cellphones and ID confiscated.
Don’t worry, it can’t happen here, right? Right??

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 16 2011 14:41 utc | 18

Folks should realize that a primary purpose of academic economics to find a justification for selfishness, ie for the very wealth to be entitled to a disproportionate share of a societies common production. -erichwwk
All the hysteria and hyperbole about debts, specially in the US where it reaches familial psychodrama levels, is a cover up for a struggle between different factions, some political, most not, but all have other aims which they project onto the ‘debt‘ issue. False arguments, including from the ‘left’.
The problem is just one of accounting; the (proper) use of symbols and measurement, if we forget the political and power struggle issues.
Everyone owes money to everyone else in the ‘west’ and in theory they could, first of all, be cancelled out by swopping IOUs, leaving some residuals.
As the future has been hocked big time (debts are assets – I read somewhere that 1/3 of NZ Gvmt holdings is represented by student debt! No idea if it is true – the Gvmt. is flush on paper because young ppl are on the hook to pay for 20 years) it might feel unpleasant and many banks would go phut.
No need for them anyway, all one wants, ideally, is a rigorously run clearing house, with a central bank that regulates money supply, tender, etc.
Re-treading banksters to work in the textile industry, tax collection, the police, transport logistics, green endeavors, and so on, is no problem I can assure you (from CH.) If one cares!
Secondly, debt can be restructured or forgiven, or even repudiated, with little pain or difficulty.
Third, hot money is slushing around the planet with no place to go!
Buffet focussing on taxes just inflames the present debate and scotches off other avenues. He is a well-meaning fellow I suppose.
The debate about taxes in the US is nonsensical as the basic ingredients and principles of taxation, as well as the spending, are not known or discussed. (“Submerged State.”)
Btw, Lybians don’t pay taxes at all – not even a VAT. Several ex-USSR have a lowish flat tax which seems to suit.
Disclaimer: I failed economy 101.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 16 2011 14:50 utc | 19

read my lips

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 16 2011 17:24 utc | 20

and then if I remember right through his lips came barf on the PM of Japan. What great comic relief for high school kids in history classes in a hundred years. Yeah, I know I’m being optimistic.

Posted by: juannie | Aug 16 2011 23:02 utc | 21

capitalism collapsing, etc…
Roubini Warns of Global Recession Risk… possible riots.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 18 2011 5:42 utc | 22