Warren Buffett, who according to Forbes.com is worth some 62 billion, wrote in a New York Times op-ed that that those making over $1 million per year should be taxed at higher rates. He is noted for telling members of the Forbes 400 that he would donate $1 million to charity if the collective group of richest Americans would admit they pay less taxes, as a percentage of income, than their secretaries.
A novel idea?
No.
In 1875 Great Britain was in financial distress. It had to borrow money from the Rothschild bank to purchase control of the Suez Canal. In a discussion with Sir Edward Rothschild, Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli asked how to set right the nation’s finances. Sir Edward replied, “Tax the rich and tax them heavily.”
Still, Buffett is talking the talk even if he is not yet walking the walk.
He reportedly stated that “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,” he wrote. “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.”
I'm not a tax accountant so I don't know how the super-rich can pay such relatively low rates on their substantial incomes while the average Joe and Josephine pay higher rates, but I do know that this country is in a fiscal crisis.
While the average American is worried about keeping a roof over the family's head, the oil industry - racking up massive profits helped by subsidies - is advertising that increasing the tax load on its profits is counter-productive to the national well-being.
According to the Washington Post dated April 28, 2011, "Exxon Mobil reported a first-quarter profit Thursday of $10.7 billion, a 69 percent jump from the year before as higher crude oil prices, fatter U.S. oil refining and marketing margins, and a revival in global demand for petrochemicals boosted earnings."
Back in 1875, Britain was strapped by its wars and colonization exploits and had to find new ways to increase revenue.
In 2011, the U.S. is strapped by what I deem mismanaged foreign wars and mismanaged foreign welfare, The "Washington crowd" with its wasteful ways - it's not their money, after all - aggravate the issue.
I agree with the Republicans that small businesses - and their owners - need protection so they can hire and grow, but I agree with the Democrats that taxes for the super-rich can and should be raised, at least so they pay the same percentage their secretaries pay.
While I support higher taxes on the very rich, the Buffetts and Gates and their fellow Forbes 400 Club members, the government needs to reduce the country's obligations without damaging U.S. social programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (whose efficiencies can be greatly increased), education, etc.
We have sold America to the Chinese; it's time to start buying it back.
The only way to do that is to increase income while reducing spending.
Does the U.S. really need to station troops in - as examples - Germany and England?
Does the U.S. really need to send in thousands of troops to eliminate a few individuals?
Does the U.S. really need to subsidize so many other nations' economies?
If I was in the Forbes 400 Club and the U.S. wanted to increase my taxes to a rate that equaled my secretary's, I would want to see some fiscal responsibility from inside the beltway.
The country deserves better than we are getting.
The country deserves sensible government, not the extremist politics both parties are foisting on us today.
