Contributors

Thursday, August 18, 2011

People Invest To Make Money

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.


We hear a lot of garbage from the right about how higher taxes will lead to lack of investment and job losses. These same people lapse into their ridiculous hubris and assume that anyone left of center doesn't know anything about how business works. They do, of course, despite all evidence to the contrary. The above quote is from someone who knows business a great deal more than most and has the wealth to prove it. Before I get to who it is, let's take a look at some more facts from his recent piece.

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.

So, their taxes have gone down and their wealth has gone up.Why they are bitching is a complete mystery. Why people who make 40K a year are proxy bitching for them is borderline insanity.

Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

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.


Hmm...Nikto and I have been saying the same thing.

So who is the author who has clearly and factually related this information? It's Warren Buffett, one of the three richest men in the world.  Now, given that he is a shining example of success in the world of investments and business as well as knowing a thing or two about jobs, it follows logically that we should heed his advice: let's stop coddling the super rich....as in right fucking now.

If we are going to make spending cuts, we have to follow with an overhaul of how we collect revenue. That means no more subsidies, tax shelters for the wealthy, and the end of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. In short, a complete overhaul of the tax system. This is what has to be done to seriously address the issue of our debt and prop up the overall health of our economy.

The time for make believe and managing fantasies is over. We need to destroy the bizarre myths that the right have created regarding taxes. They must be exposed as the catechisms of true believers that they are and have no place in reality. They are holding us back from fixing our country and propelling us in a positive direction towards the future.

17 comments:

ShinySideOut said...

If Buffett says it, I don't trust it. He is one of the three richest - and therefore one of the three most evil people on the planet.

He made his billions off of the sweat of the proletariat, and I have heard that he invented a fusion bomb that used orphan's tears as a catalyst!

last in line said...

Holding "us" back? You had 2 years with a veto proof majority to do whatever "your side" wanted to do and if it ain't done, the people you voted for didn't want to get it done. The data in the article I linked to yesterday shows that you should be happy with some of this...there aren't as many millionaires as there were just 4 years ago.

Your proposals to get more money to Washington DC may work, but then the politicians will spend all that too. Which income bracket will be your next target?

There are other reasons why Warrens tax rate is lower.

Mark Ward said...

That's disingenuous to say that, last. The Democratic Party is not a monolith. Unlike the GOP, there are no purity tests and rigid imperatives. The Dems have a wide spectrum from socialists to fiscally conservative reps. Passing things like defense cuts might work in districts where there are no defense contracts but not in ones where there are such contracts.

My point in putting up this up is to see if the view of a very successful businessman has any resonance and might break through the rigidity.

blk said...

"You had 2 years with a veto proof majority to do whatever "your side" wanted to do and if it ain't done, the people you voted for didn't want to get it done."

This is just a flat-out lie. The Senate runs by minority rule. Any single senator can put a hold on pretty much anything he wants to. Once you get past that, to get up an up-or-down vote, you first have to get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster, which the Republicans demand on every single bill.

In 2008 the Democrats won 60 votes in the Senate, but Al Franken wasn't seated until July 7th, 2009. On August 25th, 2009, Ted Kennedy died.

Total time the Democrats had a "veto-proof" majority: less than two months, in the middle of the dog days of summer.

last in line said...

"Total time the Democrats had a "veto-proof" majority: less than two months, in the middle of the dog days of summer."

This is just a flat out lie as well. You stopped your history lesson at a convenient time for you to make your point.

After Kennedy died, he replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60. After that, the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election.

So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks, not less than 2 months. The DREAM acta nd the repeal of don't ask, don't tell were hot issues then, and they didn't make it through the senate during that period. I'm shocked that the democrats used their filibuster proof majority to hold the country back like that. It's like they don't give a crap what folks like us think or something!! omglol!

Let's talk about the stuff you left out, like the two independents, Leiberman and Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats. Thanks for acknowledging another human being on here blk. You both talk of the other side being rigid and your heroes proposed legislative solutions that not even 1 gop senator could jump on board with?

last in line said...

Unlike the GOP, there are no purity tests and rigid imperatives.

You want me to go find your quotes on here about “Let the GOP infighting begin!”? So back then, the spectrums of the party are debating it out and today, they are so rigid that there is no room for debate? You can’t claim both as fact depending on which narrative of the day you are going with.

What you typed up isn’t going to change my view because you only gave half the story. I’ve followed the Buffett stuff recently because of his recent article.

Fact #1 – Berkshire Hathaway does not pay dividends.

Fact #2 – With regards to Berkshires money, one of Mr. Buffett’s famous quotes is this – “Our favorite holding period is forever”. You only pay income taxes at any rate on realized appreciation. An investment with a holding period of forever incurs a capital gains tax of 0%, while all along the holder can be getting wealthy from appreciation. That very well could be one of the reasons Warren does not pay a lot of income taxes.

Fact #3 – He takes deductions, just like Mark and blk do. Let’s take a look at maybe the biggest one he takes advantage of - the charity loophole. For billionaires like Buffett, the single most important deduction in the tax code is for charitable giving. Middle-class earners can't give nearly as much money away to reduce their overall tax burden. We sure didn’t hear Buffett calling for the elimination of that deduction in the name of fairness.

Why not? Because he has sheltered the bulk of his fortune from federal taxes by putting them into his foundation that will give the money away. Is that an act of generosity? Sure is, but if the government's purposes are so vital, why doesn't he simply give the money to the IRS? Rebecca Quick of CNBC put that question to Mr. Buffett in 2007. His answer: "Well, that's a choice and it's an option…if I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multibillionaire, or give it to the government, I'd absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government."

I love your new buddy’s comments about the efficiency of private donors compared to the government. Quite a large tax preference no?

last in line said...

I do consider Warren to be a greal stock picker and he has no doubt been successful in the world of investing but his business model is not something I would think a lefty would admire. Did you know that Warren Buffett owns six life insurance companies? Did you know he supports the estate tax? Did you know that the life insurance lobby is actively lobbying to restore the estate tax? You do now.

Why would the life insurance industry care about that? It turns out that ten percent of life insurance industry revenue is related to the estate tax. Wealthy people take out life insurance in order to reduce estate taxes because when you die, your life insurance payout doesn't count as part of your estate.

A family business owner or farmer takes out a large life insurance policy. When he finally passes away, the life insurance pays out his policy to his family - tax free.

Even as Buffett's insurance companies are "protecting" family businesses from the IRS, he is buying companies that are forced to sell themselves to pay the death tax. Mr. Buffetts ability to buy family businesses at bargain basement prices depends on families being desperate to sell-and nothing produces family businesses desperate to sell quickly like a 55% bill from the IRS on all of the businesses' assets.

Estate taxes must be paid to the U.S. Treasury within a year of the testator's death. In cash.

A major truth is that his businesses benefit from one of the major big-government redistributive programs by which the ruling class makes government bigger and families smaller. He's a leader of a redistributive combine that wants to keep what it got from the government favor factory. When you increase the size and scope of govt, you increase the size and scope of the favor factory also.

The overall health of the economy depends on more money flowing into the government? That’s just stupid, and it’s not disingenous to say that.

Let’s take one of you and blk’s favorite things to invest in – infrastructure. When China wanted to build a new major transcontinental–type rail system, it drew a line on the map between the major 2 cities and it started construction right away, will all costs and operations being controlled by their government. Go ahead and try to do that here. Here, our government will hold hearings for 2 or more years to determine which cities to connect, then spend a couple more years doing environmental studies, and then spend a few more years in court questioning the studies. By that point, we have spent more money than the project is worth.

Think I’m full of shit? Think again buffalo breath. In the San Francisco earthquake in 1989, the Bay bridge was damaged and in 1990, it was determined that the eastern half of the bridge needed to be replaced. It is now 21 years later and they are still 2 to 3 years from completion...with China providing the steel along with most of the prebuilt components. Why? Tens of thousands of pages of regulations pushed by special interest groups from both sides and passed by the all holy elected officials that you lefites all look to for solving problems.

Mark Ward said...

So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks, not less than 2 months.

That's fine but neither one of those is the two years you originally stated. You are also not taking into account the ideological spectrum of the Democrats. They don't all vote in lock step...like the GOP often does.

Regarding Buffett, you are dodging the issue. Is he right or wrong about taxes? As far as I know, Grover Norquist has no hold over you, last, so you can say whatever you want. If you think he is wrong, why? We've cut taxes and now we have the results. We extended the Bush tax cuts and we are doing worse. The evidence is plain as they eye can see if you are willing to look.

The overall health of the economy depends on more money flowing into the government?

The overall health of our economy depends on addressing the issue of our debt. That's what I said. That's something on which we can all agree. We can't seriously do that with only looking at spending cuts and ignoring revenue. And whether you won't to admit or not, our government helps the economy with its spending in a whole host of areas, defense being a big one. It's not the only leg on the stool but it is a big one.

Santa said...

Last, regarding your Buffett statements,

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

and

8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.

Well done!

Anonymous said...

"The overall health of our economy depends on addressing the issue of our debt."

So you've changed your mind? Those of us who believe you, and follow your words in order to be more informed remember you saying that the debt doesn't matter.

Larry said...

last in line: So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks, not less than 2 months.

Reading-challenged Mark: That's fine but neither one of those is the two years you originally stated.


Except that what he originally stated was, "You had 2 years with a veto proof majority[...]" Not quite the same thing.

Larry said...

Anonymous@5:10, the debt didn't matter before it did matter until it didn't matter again until it mattered again because Marky needed to deploy it. Next week it will change again. One must be flexible of mind in order to be a Proggy.

Santa said...

Larry, regarding your continued comments about Mark and the debt

7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."

with a dash of

8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.

last in line said...

Ok, I made an error. How bout this.

You had 2 years with very strong majorities and control of the white house. The veto-proof majority existed in the house and you had a very strong majority in the senate.

Hey Santa, whose character did I assasinate? I called one of Marks statements stupid...that's about as close as I got. I never implied that anyone here was too dumb to follow my posts either. Feel free to dispute anything I typed about Buffet or his business structure. You can't, which is why you started talking about me instead of what I typed up about Buffet.

My point was to point out other, more relevant reasons why Warren pays so few taxes. Not one of you were able to dispute anything I typed in my 1:13 post or the 1:20 post.

I think Buffet is wrong about taxes. I don't dispute the numbers he used. I absolutely dispute the notion that our current problems are simply a result of low taxes.

I think you are wrong also. I think you are wrong when you say "We've cut taxes and now we have the results. We extended the Bush tax cuts and we are doing worse" as the reasons for our current economic woes/low tax revenues. Yes, we extended the Bush tax cuts and yes, we are having economic woes right now. I could also make the claim that Obama, and everyone else you voted for, got their economic agenda through a heavily Democratic Congress and signed into law. That agenda included an $830 billion stimulus bill, billions more in auto bailouts, mortgage bailouts, cash for clunkers, ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank.

We got all that before the GOP took back the house. All that defense in the senate BLK is talking about didn't stop any of the items I just mentioned.

Juris Imprudent said...

True or false, Warren Buffet eschews all the tax breaks he has available to him and makes contributions over his legal tax liability because he believes it is the right thing to do?

If that isn't true, isn't all his talk pretty empty? Of course the liberal/progressive/left loves empty rhetoric - so I'm sure you all give him pass.

Oh, and all of you dumbass lefties, note that this post contained not one comment on M or his personal proclivities. Figured I needed to point that out to y'all.

Larry said...

Hmmm, Santa, pointing out that Mark actually has flipped and flopped and flipped again on whether the debt is a real problem is "bullying" and "confusion"? Would putting up links to his posts showing his sinuously shifting positions over time may well be akin to "assault", then?

No name said...

I like Warren buffet. Good head on his shoulders. I am glad he spoke up. He is a Republican who is not completely snowed by right wing media. Standin strong on his own like only he can.

So I have to type the name in every time?