Maggie's Farm

Of course he did. But they didn't scoff at him, really, did they?
They simply pointed out that if he wanted to pay more, he could - what's the big deal?

For him, and for the Democrats, it's about taking a personal matter and making it a public political statement.

No more should be said about it - this is why I pointed out that I shouldn't need to see or hear about any of this from anyone. But more can, and will, be said about it, because the left wants to make it an issue that there is a wealthy man who thinks others need to pay more.

I say "so what?" Let people do what they want with their money.

I'm not sure the numbers matter, let alone the term "millionaire". I've done my own net worth and technically I'm a "millionaire".

Don't mean a hill of beans if you're paying money (mortgages, taxes, insurance) to keep the illiquid asset as part of your portfolio, and barely making those payments with the income you have. Millionaire, shmillionaire.

I'm more interested in knowing how much of their income is derived from stock ownership, and what companies they are deriving that income from. That would answer many questions about why they feel the way they do about taxes, tax credits, and subsidies.

It is misleading to assume that if you feel you need to pay more, that everyone 'like you' should pay more. In that sense, he isn't a hypocrite, he's just misguided.

From the standpoint that he is challenging only the Republicans, he is a hypocrite. He has made much of the fact that this isn't or shouldn't be a politically divisive issue - but then has used his words to create a politically divisive situation.

You know, there's nothing wrong with the discussion.

And it isn't hypocritical to say one thing and do another. I'm opposed to government subsidies and tax credits of all kinds, but if they are being offered, I'm a fool if I don't take them. Just because I oppose them doesn't mean I should avoid taking them.

In that sense, no Buffett is not a hypocrite. He can have the conversation while not paying anything additional.

However, it's wrong for him to say that everyone should pay more. If he feels he's not paying enough, that's one thing. It's quite another thing for him to suggest others like him should pay more.
What is different from his view and mine is simple:
Buffett wants to impose his opinion of confiscation on everyone like him. This is a misguided argument and discussion.
Meanwhile, my point of view regarding subsidies and credits means that nobody gives up anything. They just don't get more for nothing.

In other words, he wants to impose a coercive structure that makes the tax structure uneven, while my view seeks to level the playing field - why should I get credits and subsidies that others may not?

Similar behaviors, but very different effects overall.

You have defined my view to be that as long as the discussion is for lower rates, it's OK. Yet - show me where I said that. The discussion itself is fine.

Buffett is using his own personal experience to act as a red herring. "I earn more and feel I should pay more and that should be enough for any of you to believe everyone who is wealthy should pay more." That's his basic premise - right? I'd be surprised if you disagree. But there's nothing there of importance to the discussion.

If Buffett had cut a check and said "I think we need to pay more as part of the 1%," I'd give him a bit more slack. He put his money where his mouth is and left his personal idiosyncracies to the side, and he would have avoided politics altogether (a key part of his original premise was that so much of this is overly politicized).

But he didn't. He became a political football by not voluntarily paying more - which he could have done - and then decided to go political because people criticized him for not doing this.

Buffett can say he feels he needs to pay more in taxes, and that is legitimate. But why do we have to agree with him, and does that mean we can only have the discussion if we discuss higher taxes for everyone? I think not.

Particularly because his solution is to utilize the coercive force of government and cover his tracks with silly emotional words like 'it's best for the nation'. Well, I'm not sure he's arbiter for what's best, anymore than anyone else is. Coercion shouldn't be used to derive income because one wealthy man thinks he's undertaxed.

He is not advocating that tax rates on the rich should true-up to anything. That is a sidelight story in an otherwise larger discussion on increased taxation. His secretary was an interesting and useful (and ultimately incorrect) tool for him to utilize in pursuing a larger goal.

His rates are lower because of how he derives his income, and because of the loopholes he utilizes. His secretary doesn't earn as much from investment. Investment is, quite logically, taxed at lower rates than earned income, because of the risks and time frames involved.

Now, if he really wants to be honest, he should be railing against all the loopholes he utilizes. Had he done this, or simply written a check to begin with, I'd have no argument with him.

But he didn't. In addition, his political play was misguided and silly. It was designed to make on party look bad while asking nothing from the other - a horrid display of partisanship where none is required.