Good, and timely article

[kcjenkins]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/watch-what-warren-buffett-does-not-what-he-says_664022.html?page=1

[JohnH]

I respect Warren's Buffet's investment acumen, but I take what he says about taxes with a grain of salt. The day he announces he sent in a voluntary payment toward the national debt with his tax return, he will gain some credibility with me. Until then, his disingenuous pronouncements about taxation are nothing more than hot air - much like the politicians who cozy up to him. He isn't willing to put his money where his mouth is.

[kcjenkins]

It's worse than that, John. He actually structures his investments to maximize after-tax profits, [a valid common-sense decision], while spouting his pro-tax political expositions. He's a total hypocrite. If he did announce he'd made a voluntary payment, I'd be very suspicious that it was a very insignificant amount. If he thinks he should be paying 31%, then all he has to do is write his check for that much, right?.

t

[JohnH]

Exactly. I think he's smart to structure his investments on such a way as to minimize his tax liability. Most us do the same to whatever extent possible.

But if I honestly believed I should pay more taxes, then if I have integrity I'd voluntarily pay what I think I should pay, regardless of what others are paying. Then when I spouted off about why I should pay more, I could show that I've voluntarily done what is right and use that as leverage to urge other like-minded people to follow my example.

[Randall]

I don't fault him for structuring his investments to pay the least amount of taxes. I would advise any client to do so, even if I disagreed with the tax laws. I don't fault Romney for having overseas bank accounts. Gee, it's the prudent thing to do if you have a lot of money. I'm not talking about hiding money or trying to get away from paying taxes, rather just diversifying out of the dollar. And why would anyone send in a voluntary payment? He could pay his entire fortune and it wouldn't put a dent in the debt.

[GeneInAlabama]

>> If he thinks he should be paying 31%, then all he has to do is write his check for that much, right?. <<

Would the Treasury Department be able to accept the "donation", or would the red tape prevent them from accepting it? Is there a precedure that allows the Treasury Department to accept donations. I don't know. Just wondering.

[michaelmars]

do you all remember back in the 80's there was a check box on the 1040 to make a voluntary donation to reduce the national debt. it was either next to or replaced by, the check box to make a campaign contributions.

[jainen]

>>He's a total hypocrite.<<

You have previously endorsed a flat tax, but since that has not happened yet do you feel hypocritical claiming your deductions? Of course not. Everyone is entitled to their political opinions for change while still following the law as it currently exists.

[MAMalody]

>> If he thinks he should be paying 31%, then all he has to do is write his check for that much, right?. <<

Would the Treasury Department be able to accept the "donation", or would the red tape prevent them from accepting it? Is there a precedure that allows the Treasury Department to accept donations. I don't know. Just wondering.

The US Government accepts donations all the time. I have a client, who a couple of years ago, was told by the IRS he did not have to pay a certain tax because the statue had expired. He paid it anyway as a donatiion and the government freely accepted it. If Buffet wants to make a donation to the government, they would accept it.

[JohnH]

How Do You Make a Gift to Reduce Debt Held By the Public?

Page 88 of the Form 1040 Instructions (attached) will settle this question.

This wording has been in the instructions for as many years as I have been preparing tax returns.

It's even legal to take a charitable deduction for this payment.

Public_Debt_Reduction.pdf

[JohnH]

Warren Buffet has repeatedly said that he and others like him should be paying more tax. I've heard Bill Clinton and others advance the same argument. They should not make such statements unless they are willing to lead by example. The law as it currently exists already makes provision for them to pay more tax if they truly believe that is what they should be doing.

Maybe I can illustrate my point. Let's assume that we learn that the average annual contribution to eric for maintaining this site is $xx. When I discover this, I say that I think everyone should be contributing $xxx. Then someone says we should contribute based on our gross revenue, so I change my mind and say everyone whose gross revenue is under $50K should pay $xx while everyone whose gross revenue is over $50K should pay $xxx because that's the fair thing to do.

If my gross revenue is $150K, then I should be willing to go ahead any pay my $xxx if I TRULY BELIEVE it is the fair thing to do. And if I'm a person of integrity, I should be willing to do it even if nobody else does. Plus, if I go ahead and pay my $xxx, I then have the moral high ground to urge everyone else to do the same. Otherwise I'm just a bag of wind.

Disclaimer #1: Some will maintain that I'm just a bag of wind regardless of what I do or say, which is certainly your right.

DIsclaimer #2: Numbers are pulled out of the air - my gross revenue is not $150K

[jainen]

>>Warren Buffet has repeatedly said that he and others like him should be paying more tax.<<

That is not the same as saying he should pay more even if others like him do not pay more. Some people feel taxation should only be about revenue, but Congress uses it for all sorts of social and economic stimulus. It is appropriate for anyone to save on taxes by making targeted investments or contributions or whatever else our representative government encourages.

The current consensus (obviously not 100% agreement) is that wealthy taxpayers should not remove cash from the economy by paying into the government. My understanding of that position is that more money in the private sector will stimulate economic growth that will in turn generate higher tax revenues.

Another position points to the massive economic growth in the 1950's when the Republican administration bumped the top rate to 91%. Perhaps Buffet feels this should not be an individual decision. Higher rates might once again benefit everyone..

[GeneInAlabama]

How Do You Make a Gift to Reduce Debt Held By the Public?

Page 88 of the Form 1040 Instructions (attached) will settle this question.

This wording has been in the instructions for as many years as I have been preparing tax returns.

It's even legal to take a charitable deduction for this payment.

In all these years I don't remember ever noticing that. I guess we tend to see what we want to see. I have never had anyone want to pay more than they owe. I did have one client want to check the political contribution box.

[SCL]

>>He's a total hypocrite.<<

You have previously endorsed a flat tax, but since that has not happened yet do you feel hypocritical claiming your deductions? Of course not. Everyone is entitled to their political opinions for change while still following the law as it currently exists.

thank you jainen.

get in line right wing hypocricts...then you can judge...maybe.

[JohnH]

One way to deflect an argument is to call the other side silly names.

But tired innuendo doesn't negate the original point.

The simple fact remains that if Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, and other liberals really believe they should be paying more taxes, they should avail themselves of the opportunity to do so. There is a mechanism already built into the system to enable them to assuage their guilt over their low tax rates. Most importantly, it would also set an example that they could then encourage others to follow, either voluntarily or through changes to the tax system.

A person of integrity will do the right thing even when not required to do it and even when others aren't doing it. Absent some concrete action on their part, all of the above are just blowing smoke for their liberal sycophants. It's pretty effective. I expect they are laughing all the way to the bank.

[SCL]

you had no problem spewing hyperbole, specious, and fallacious arguments (plural) well before i offered my so called 'silly' name (not 'names').

[jainen]

>>One way to deflect an argument is to call the other side silly names. ...all of the above are just blowing smoke for their liberal sycophants<<

[JohnH]

Just following the pattern already established. Don't know why you'd have a problem with it.

Btw, the original point still stands, unrefuted as far as I'm concerned.

[jainen]

>>the original point still stands, unrefuted<<

I understand your original point to be that if someone wants to pay more tax he should do so. That can't be refuted because it is not a fact. It is an opinion, and an irrelevant one at that. Buffet did not say he wanted to pay more tax. He wants the tax rates to be progressively higher. That is an opinion too, but it is based on the historical fact that the only time we had very high top rates the economy boomed. High rates encouraged re-investment in equipment and labor, which increased production, which increased income, which increased tax revenue. Under Republican leadership--refute that.

[JohnH]

This entire thread is about opinions. My original point was that if somebody spouts off about how they should be paying more taxes than their secretary, then they can validate that statement by actually doing it. That would give them the moral high ground in the debate. Instead, we get lots of heat and smoke but no fire, and Liberals eat it up like catnip. (the smoke analogy is not accidental)

[SCL]

this tread is not about opinion...if it was, you would have standing.

this thread is about your ad hominim attack (logical fallacy.) against buffet.

buy a vowel...get a clue.

[JohnH]

I understand your point and your perspective. Expecting someone to demonstrate integrity always equates to an ad hominem attack in the Liberal universe.

[taxxcpa]

I see no conflict in Warren Buffett's position on taxes. If he gave his entire wealth to the government, it would barely put a dent in the deficit. Iif all billionaires paid a higher percentage year-after-year, it still might not help much, but it would help those of us in the lower brackets think we are being taxed more fairly than we are if those greedy billionaires keep too much of their money.