Warren Buffett: Tax 'The Hides Of Guys Like Me'

Source: Baltimore Sun

Billionaire Warren Buffett told the Senate Finance Committee today that Congress should preserve the estate tax rather than worrying about a few rich Americans like him.

"I think we need to ... take a little more out of the hides of guys like me," Buffett told the panel.

Buffett, one of the world's richest men and most generous philanthropists, is outspoken against Republican efforts mainly to repeal or lower the federal tax on inheritances. Democrats mainly call its repeal a windfall for the nation's wealthiest, while Republicans say the so-called "death tax'' burdens many small businessmen and farmers as well.

Already, the tax is being rolled back as part of the tax cuts that President Bush pushed during his first term -- with estates worth up to $2 million this year and next exempt. Bush has called on Congress to make his tax-cuts permanent, but Democrats aren't rushing to that call.

By 2009, the exemption is slated to rise to estates valued at up to $3.5 million, and by 2010 the tax is to be repealed -- but only for a year. Unless Congress acts, the tax will return with a big swing in '11, taxing estates at over $1 million with a top tax rate of 55 percent.



Read more: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/warren_buffett_tax_the_hides_o.html

He'll be o.k. He's a good man, with the right ideas. A shame nobody in power today listens to him.

sense to listen to him. Old Georgie is just trying to make sure he doesn't pay on his own inheritance. It would mean more speeches.

If there were no estate exemption, how much would the US Treasury really raise? I find it difficult to support the idea of taxing someone for dying. It makes no sense to me. Raise taxes on them while they're alive. Buffett's heirs probably won't have much inheritance tax to pay because he seems to be donating it all before he dies. Personally, if I had that kind of money, I'd prefer to be the one to decide how it's distributed to charities, etc. instead of just turning it over to a spend-happy government.

I had a period where I made much more money than I do now. Nowhere near Buffett's level, of course, but still even at a small level you get to a point where you can only spend so much. After that, you become aware of the inequities of the tax system. I vote with Warren.

efforts of the many so that their heirs do not believe that they should be the idle rich makes a lot of sense to me.

Stereotype much?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/25/estate-18/



The 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax (aka the Paris Hilton Tax) on heirs of the super wealthy has been financed and coordinated by just 18 families, according to a new report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy.

The families include “the candy magnate Mars family, Waltons of Wal-Mart fame, Kochs of Koch Industries and Dorrance family of the Campbell’s Soup Co.” Together, they are worth a total of $185.5 billion. The estate tax repeal would “collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.”

Bending to the will of these families, House and Senate conservatives are proposing to permanently repeal the estate tax — or seek a “compromise” that is nearly as bad — even though such a move would cost over three quarters of a trillion dollars in the next decade. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has promised a vote on repeal in May.

Meanwhile, a new poll finds that 57 percent favor reforming or leaving alone the estate tax; only 23 percent back repealing it. And for good reason: Americans are about four times as likely to be hit by lightning than to have to pay estate taxes on small businesses or farms.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/25/estate-18/

:thumbsup:

The estate tax needs to stay in place.

Crazy.

and they don't have enough yet. it's fucking absurd, the lower income folks can't afford health care, good schooling , a decent holiday and these assholes have billions. i can't wrap my head around a money figure like that. it's not like having a million dollars in liquid assets, or in cash, a billion can never ever be spent by one family.

One Responsible Wealth member, Martin Rothenberg, grew up using the public library, went to school on the GI Bill, received a government fellowship, and built a $30 million software company using publicly-funded research and publicly-educated employees. ³I hope the taxes on my estate will help fund the kind of programs that benefited me and others from humble backgrounds,² he says.

He HOPES? If I had his money, I'd make SURE it went where he wanted it to go via donations. WTF turn it over to the government and "HOPE" it goes where it should. That money may go where he doesn't want it.

Just Damn. Stupidity knows no bounds, even this wealthy guy.:banghead:

not Libertarian Underground or Republican Fat Cat Underground.

We aren't into massive accumulation of capital into the hands of a few.

well what site this is. Yes, I have a viewpoint that differs from you. Sorry you're so easily offended by someone who doesn't share your narrow view of the world. Maybe you should not blog. Your skin seems too thin. Or your intellectual capability for sound debate is very limited.

It's because of folks like you, we can't trust our government to do what it had done for Martin Rothenberg. Now that is stupid.

It's a tax on the windfall income of the heirs. The people dying aren't being taxed, they're dead.

Given the complexity of the existing tax code, it doesn't seem that it would be that difficult to carve out some exemptions when the inheritance is tied up in a asset-rich cash-poor entity like a farm or small business.

...and I just find it kind of hard to work up much sympathy for the Paris Hiltons of this world having to cough up some of their inheritance...

via tax shelters. They can pay, much more so than everyone else.

you can make millions and pay no taxes? The reason the republicans changed the name from Inheritance tax to "death tax" is to back up cockamamie reasoning like that.

weak, I won't waste my time with more of a response.

The tax is supposed to work against the idiot spawn of the wealthy from assuming the power of the wealth, without any knowledge of how it was created or how it should be used. Needless to say there are children of wealthy people that are capable, but look what happens when you take a complete f#@king moron and give him the power of his grandparent's and parent's wealth.

The people who wrote the constitution wanted to limit the chances of aristocracy. The way to do that is to place curbs on how much money, therefore power, is transfered to offspring.

Certainly that's what triggers it, but it is a tax upon those who inherit this money, but never earned it. Wouldn't we all love for Paris Hilton to reap billions from her family's business and not have to pay a penny in taxes when she didn't earn any of this fortune. It doesn't seem fair on the surface, but societal concerns are what makes this fair to the rest of us. The concentration of extreme wealth becomes the concentration of extreme power. Not a good thing.

The estate tax currently affects something like 12000 people in the U.S. Most of those affected transfer those assets before their demise so they are not subject to the estate tax in the first place

Funny with the cost of food and energy which affects most everyone, very little is said. In fact there is a direct link to our invasion of Iraq, and creating instability in that part of the world, and the increases in food and energy.

Interesting that they exclude food and energy when calculating inflation

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PB&pubid=384

thank you for not calling it the Paris Hilton Tax. At last, one whom makes sense.

because I appreciate what he is saying, and in the meantime, before tax laws change, if he and some friends want to be my venture capital partners on a biz - that would be wonderful.

So-

To Whom It May Concern (or, hey, Warren!)

My biz prop is not any big fancy thing, wouldn't make the rich rich, they'd probably just have a tax write-off for at least five years, but it could be a possible model for near-future small-scale ways to live in the world. Sort of like "micro-loans," the American version. My guesstimate on start-up costs would be about 5 mil. Probably that many years to see a return on initial investment.

Local job-power-social service support are part of the idea of the biz. I think my sort of thinking is the way of the future... it's already the future in lots of places.

As far as my biz intuition... I was telling people to buy Euros back in 2001... was that about the time Buffet started buying them? In the early 1980s I told one of my wealthier relatives that he should build franchises for these fun stores called IKEA... before one had ever opened here... I never bothered to find out if they franchise.

Or maybe Mr. Buffet could view it as the equivalent of an estate tax, except it goes directly toward creating a few jobs here and there.

Anyone on here know Buffet? Please pass along my message and he can email me. thanks! :patriot:

oh, and I'm not really joking. I mean, I am but I'm not. I just don't have the nerve to actually write such a letter.

Try something with substance. :think:

You said absolutely nothing.:shrug:

:eyes:

I used to be a Financial Advisor and I ran across more then one situation where a family farm had to be liquidated to pay estate taxes.

I am now a right of way agent and have run enough title to know that the heirs have to sell off land to pay this stupid tax. These people are not wealthy in a cash sense, they are forced to sell property that they grew up on, hunted on, farmed on, etc. They are NOT Paris Hiltons. (Which is the weakest, laziest, and most stupid argument I've heard).

The extended family inherited a ranch of thousands of acres where she spent her entire life hunting and raising cattle. She and the rest of the family had to sell most of it off to pay the estate taxes. It broke her heart. It was a double blow after losing her grandfather.

Many don't understand that it's not about the money, but the memories. Why take that away from them?

BTW, where was the ranch?

is in Holopaw Fl. I had been there a gazillion times and it is beautiful. And it was several hundred acres not thousand. I don't know where my mind is tonight.

children and grandchildren? So they can become useless wastrels and brats?

What will we tell the children?????

The parents earned the money and should have the right to pass it along to their heirs, charity, etc. Are all, or even a majority of beneficiaries "wastrels and brats'? Uh? If so, I'd like to see some data. If no, spare me (and yourself) the demagoguery.

I didn't EARN it. I was given it. Because it was a small amount, it was not subject to inheritance taxes in effect at the time.

If someone inherits millions or billions that they DID NOT THEMSELVES WORK FOR AND GET PAID, then yes, I want to see it taxed. It's essentially free money.

We don't have royalty here in the US. Inheritance taxes are why.

- thus spake Warren Buffett

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity2.fortune/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1986/09/29/68098/index.htm

:think:

would become completely apoplectic over Buffett.

It is an income tax on the people who are still alive.

Don't tell me these heirs are all doing billions of dollars of HAAARDD WEERRRKKKKK to earn their inheritances, lol.

that the most easily avoided tax is named after the least avoidable thing in life. What my family did was to incorporate their assets. Now, some financial advisors might say this is a bad idea since they say corporate profits are double taxed. That is not the case. To avoid the so called "double tax" of corporations is to pay yourself a large salary out of the corporation. At the end of the year you should show barely any profit on your corporate income tax form.

Back on topic. After my family incorporated, both my grandparents transfered $20K a year in stock to me. The original value of the shares was $700K. When I turned 25, both of them passed away. When the IRS came to collect the "death tax" I laughed at them since I had 5/7 of the shares. Even though the value of the company had increased 3 times, I couldn't be taxed for something I already owned and the other 2/7 of the shares held no value since shares in a privately held corporation have no market value because nobody wants them.

I believe most "death tax" situations occur when the original founders of a business refuse to give over their shares. I am thankful for my grandparents foresight.

when in fact it is called an inheritance tax, i.e. a living person is being taxed for receiving something of monetary value they did not possess before. The fact that you were not taxed is because, based on what you wrote, you didn't receive any inheritance of worth. Though, your comment about the 2/7th of shares left not having value doesn't make sense. Why not just give you 1/7th of the company shares, iff the remaining shares are worthless after death?

Most founders of businesses don't want to give up control and, effectively, when your grandparents transferred 4/7ths of the business to you you were majority owner and could have done what you wanted with the company without regard to the business founders desires or interests. Most people are unwilling to do that with regard to their business.

There is a limit to what can be transferred from family member to family member without being taxed. For some very rich families they couldn't do that to any substantial amount within their lifetime, so inheritance would still amount to a very large sum. It is nice your family was able to do so without any liability to you, but that doesn't work in all circumstances.

he'd like to leave his kids enough money so that they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.

He also said that, even if he didn't leave them one red cent, that the advantages of their upbringing along put them so far ahead of the game that they really shouldn't need his money to have a fulfilling and need free life.

Or maybe that was George Soros?

Anyway, I liked the sentiment.