I’ve already explained why Warren Buffett is either dishonest or clueless about tax policy. Today, on CNBC, I got to debate the tax scheme that President Obama has named after the Omaha investor.
One of my big points was that the United States already has a self-destructive set of tax laws for investment. As such, it would be very foolish to increase the double taxation of income that is saved and invested.
And my closing point, which I snuck in before they could go off air, was that the left should want lower tax rates if they want more revenue from the rich. It’s called the Laffer Curve.
[…] Warren Buffett periódicamente (e inapropiadamente) afirma que su tipo fiscal es más alto que el tipo fiscal de su secretaria. Aun así, su apoyo […]
[…] Warren Buffett periodically – and inaccurately – asserts that his tax rate in higher than his secretary’s tax rate. Yet his […]
[…] such as an increase (“surcharge”) in the top tax rate, the imposition of the so-called Buffett Rule, an increase in the tax burden on capital gains (including carried interest), and a more onerous […]
[…] Rejecting the Buffett Rule and Fighting Obama’s Class Warfare on CNBC […]
The idea of the Laffer curve is that it would generate more growth and jobs, and on that measure it’s demonstrably failed?
It’s tough in the heat of exchange to come up with a response to a straw man (“it’s effect on growth and jobs under what conditions?)/red herring (on that [unrelated] measure it’s failed).
The way I’ve had luck with is to stop, call out the fallacies and ask for clarification on your opponent’s understanding of the idea he’s misrepresenting.
[…] Rejecting the Buffett Rule and Fighting Obama’s Class Warfare on CNBC […]
Great piece. Is it true that Buffett’s secretary makes more salary than he does?
[…] Rejecting the Buffett Rule and Fighting Obama’s Class Warfare on CNBC « International Liberty […]
[…] Comments « Rejecting the Buffett Rule and Fighting Obama’s Class Warfare on CNBC […]
We have taxed in different ways for, well, ever here in america. when the rich were taxed very high we built roads, and built up the country and most didn’t mind, but that was years ago. Now I think that a ‘fair’ tax would be best. 17% across the board would be one option (as crisbd said). If we make one tax % across the board then no one can complain!
Dan, your points are very valid, but Bernstein came across as more reasonable, while you unfortunately seem to get heated, even emotional. Buffet’s 30% may indeed be good politics, but it’s class-warfare politics, and very divisive. Divide and rule is a very ancient game which is still being played today. Maybe respond that an even fairer rate of tax is HongKong’s 17% so let’s adopt that…
Bernstein skillfully ducked the question at the beginning about double taxation, so he’s obviously a politician, skilled in making even the most non-sensical proposal sound desirable. But insistence on sticking to your double taxation point, rather than going with his change of subject, is perhaps a better way to show how destructive his policies are. Emphasis on the role of capital formation and savings is crucial, and Buffet’s 30% is therefore anti-growth…
“When all the indirect taxes are accounted for, everyone pays essentially the same flat tax rate.”
http://wweethepeople.patriotactionnetwork.com/2011/12/09/taxes-on-a-warm-day/
Reblogged this on American Freedom.