Billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett explain...TITLE:Warren Buffett and Bill Gates agree that the rich should pay higher taxes—here’s what they suggestwww.cnbc.com/.../...h-should-pay-higher-taxes.htmlWarren Buffett doesn’t think the rich in America are paying enough in taxes. “The wealthy are definitely undertaxed relative to the general population,” he told CNBC’s Becky Quick during an interview on “Squawk Box” on Monday.As industries become more specific and as workers develop more specialized skill sets, Buffett said, it’s the wealthy who benefit.Back in the 1800s, for example, when most people worked on farms, those who were stronger and worked harder still earned more, Buffett explained, but “the top person working on that farm would be worth one-and-a-half to two times what the bottom person was.”However, that disparity has grown. Today, the richest 10 percent of people worldwide own 85 percent of global wealth, according to Credit Suisse’s 2018 Global Wealth Report. And as the market system continues to become increasingly specialized, “the rich will get even richer,” Buffett said.To Buffett, that means the next step should be figuring how to take care of people like “a guy who is a wonderful citizen” but “just doesn’t have market skills.”(more)
His solution: Expand the earned income tax credit, which benefits people with low incomes. Even though “that probably means more taxes for guys like me,” Buffet said, “I’m fine with it.”Fellow billionaire Bill Gates has made similar comments. “There’s no doubt that what we want government to do in terms of better education and better health care means that we need to collect more in taxes,” he said during a recent conversation in New York City. “And there’s no doubt that as we raise taxes, we can have most of that additional money come from those who are better off.”Gates, like Buffett, acknowledges that he’s among those whose taxes should go up. “I need to pay higher taxes,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria during a 2018 interview. “I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes.”In order to keep up with the growing deficit and also fund programs that provide health care and pensions, for example, the government needs to bring in more revenue, Gates says. Plus, “some people think the government should provide new promises, which is fine. It just emphasizes there’s no free lunch here, you’d have to collect more money,” he told Zakaria in 2019. One way to collect more money, Gates says, is to hike the capital gains tax, which would increase how much the wealthy are paying on their investments.(more)
“I think our system can be a lot more progressive (that is, richer people paying a higher share),” he wrote on Reddit on Monday. “A key element is making capital gains taxation more like ordinary income and having an estate tax more like we had in the past.”Buffett doesn’t think he and Gates would be alone in supporting or accepting higher tax rates, either. Though some critics contend that the tax changes proposed by politicians like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would provoke the rich to flee the U. S., the idea doesn’t scare Buffett.He could move to a state like South Dakota or Wyoming that doesn’t impose an income tax, after all, he told Quick, but he doesn’t. “I think people want to come here,” Buffett said, not leave. Even with higher taxes, he thinks, “they would come.”--- END OF ARTICLE ---
Destroying the rich? What in the world are you talking about? Do you know how much 20 million dollars is? A person will still be ultra rich if they make net $10 a million a year.Social programs do work. You just want to live and stay stuck in the bronze age.
Name one social program the Gov't runs, that actually works.You don't even know what social programs to implement. And long before ANY of that happens, the national debt needs to be addressed. The ONLY additional tax I would support is if a law was passed that any and ALL ADDITIONAL taxes collected on the wealthy can ONLY be used to pay down the debt. Also, Congress is limited to ONLY spending the amount they did in 2016 going forward until that debt is paid. The last thing I want is for Congress to assign new taxes, then proceed to OVERSPEND simply because there's a new revenue stream.You talk about $20 million being a lot of money. It's peanuts compared to the $27 TRILLION of debt the US has. That's probably more money than the combined budgets of the rest of the world! And your Democrat communist friends just want to keep adding more to it.
This:"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.""You CAN strengthen the weak by weakening the strong."That's what United We Stand means.Empathy and caregiving to the members of our family (*)/clan/society who are ailing is critical because, once healed, they can take of us when we ail. The development of this trait long ago is why we aren't hunter-gatherers in Africa anymore.It's why we rule this planet.(*) Would you not care for your weak ailing daughter?What if she had "special needs" such as needing special education or medical care that would wipe out your income or compromise your ability to take care of your other kids?So, are you going to forsake government assistance and sacrifice your daughter... let her be a victim of evolution so you can keep your other kids alive?If you do accept it, then why the fuck am I paying for it? I don't have kids. I shouldn't be paying for public education or anything else that helps you or your family... Your problems are yours, not mine.... But I do pay for that via taxes and I am happy to do so.Why?Because I believe in "United We Stand" and put my money where my mouth is.
"Name one social program the Gov't runs, that actually works."The United States Military.The original constitutionally-mandated (*) social program that's kept you free for almost 250 years.(*) The Preamble to the US Constitution:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, >>>>> provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
@abc3643 - You totally misinterpreted the meaning of the statement, "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong."The idea that the Gov't can take from someone and give to another to make the lesser better, is the whole point. You mentioned "United we Stand". That doesn't "take" from the strong. The stronger individuals purposely and intentionally support the weak. It's not where someone "takes" and gives to another. That "taking" idea, is specifically a communist pattern of governance, again, what is diametrically in opposition to the US Constitution, and American values.As for your 2nd comment, the US Military is NOT a social program run by the Gov't. IF you think it is, you need to re-evaluate your understanding of the US Government and how it's set up.If you think the military runs well, just ask anyone who works for it. I served 18yrs and took an early retirement 25yrs ago. The military is only getting worse, as more and more liberal, socialist indoctrinated officers join. They're coming out of college thinking racism, white supremacists, climate change, and other social constructs are what is important. They have zero idea how to lead. What constitutes most military leadership today is full of garbage. We don't have leaders, we have managers. Consequently, the US military is getting worse.
I understand exactly what I wrote. As a physicist and control / systems engineer working in the defense industry, I know what I am talking about.
The rich are rich because they know how to use debt.
They can write off loans for real estate on taxes, so they have no income. If you take that away , you take it away from everyone.
The tax rate back then was around 90% under President Eisenhower. I understand why because the U. S. had a ton of social development and building infrastructure throughout the whole country.
Exactly! Thank you.
"The tax rate back then was around 90%"The ***marginal rate*** was 91%. The effective rate was similar or lower than it is today. The marginal rate is irrelevant when taken by itself. The effective rate is the only one that matters.The wealthy actually pay a higher percentage of the total taxes today than they did then. It's more than double what it was then.Taxes are structured completely different now. You can't compare marginal rates, deductions, etc. You have to look at what they actually pay in taxes vs how much they make.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
They do be spending reckless, I have to agree with you there. I'm not a fan at all of giving American tax dollars to foreign nations. To me that's just very wrong. American tax dollars should benefit America and Americans only.
If they move their companies offshore then tax them very high when they try to bring their products into the U. S. to sell to Americans. 😃
In theory it sounds great.. In reality it's never going to happen. The rich will find loopholes to beat the system like they always do. Remember the politicians are in the pockets of the rich , not the other way around.
Let’s look at this in a completely different way. You’re a straight A honor roll student. Would you be willing to give some of your grades to struggling or underperforming students so you can all pass with equal grades? After all you’re giving to the common good right?
I understand. But the 91% is going to areas such as museums, schools etc. A lot of it is going to make up for lost wages to employees and help keep certain jobs from being lost in the future. The bill isn't perfect but it's better than nothing right now.
Let the people who go to museums pay for the museums. Why should I pay for Carnegie Hall?I've never been there, and I never will go there. Why are my federal tax dollars going there during a pandemic? And why do I have to pay for the rich fat cats in Silicon Valley to get an underground railway to make their work commute easier? Let Bill Gates pay for it. The founding fathers never wanted any of this shit. The federal government was meant to protect the union. The federal government wasn't about restoring performing arts centers. And with the last Covid relief bill, the US gave many millions of dollars to Pakistan to help with their gender studies.
I think social programs need to be cut not added