Warren Buffet's Secretary

[TheGeneral2112]

I'm sure someone has already posted this...

Warren Buffet's Income: $62,855,038 ($39,814,784 taxable)
Warren Buffet's Taxes: $6,900,000 (17.4%)

Debra Bosanek's Income: $200,000-$500,000
Debra Bosanek's Taxes: $70,000-$175,000 (35%)

To recap, Warren paid $6,900,000 and Bosanek paid $122,500. Who paid more?

OMFG!!!!!!!!! BOSANEK PAYS MOAR!!!!!! OBAMA FAIR OBAMA SAVE US!!!!!!111111!!!111 THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED!!!!!!! ONLAH SEVEN MILLION TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

[TheGeneral2112]

Also, both sides of payroll taxes where thrown into Bosanek's % and no deductions have been added for her. Here is the point. If you tax investments at a high rate, who will invest? I am okay with the amount he pays. Maybe if I was smart enough to invest a large portion of my income and do something good for the economy I could lower my tax rate.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/1 ... 07516.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ry/252056/

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/war ... mes-654812

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/2 ... 27820.html

[TheGeneral2112]

Saw this comment in one of the articles. I love it.

A proposal for President Gingrich: adjust the tax code so that very wealthy Democrats get hit with a hypocrisy tax adjustment and treat their investment income as ordinary income. Registered Democrats (and other left wing parties) and those who contribute to the Democratic Party and progressive causes and PACs. I would call it The Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is tax.

[rockfist]

Instead of raising Buffet's taxes how about we cap everyone's tax rates to his level and LOWER spening? I know its effing crazy...we'd have to cut such essential programs as cowboy poetry...
I am a heartless person.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm sure someone has already posted this...

Warren Buffet's Income: $62,855,038 ($39,814,784 taxable)
Warren Buffet's Taxes: $6,900,000 (17.4%)

Debra Bosanek's Income: $200,000-$500,000
Debra Bosanek's Taxes: $70,000-$175,000 (35%)

To recap, Warren paid $6,900,000 and Bosanek paid $122,500. Who paid more?

OMFG!!!!!!!!! BOSANEK PAYS MOAR!!!!!! OBAMA FAIR OBAMA SAVE US!!!!!!111111!!!111 THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED!!!!!!! ONLAH SEVEN MILLION TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

You missed the part where this was shown to be incorrect?

BUT.. to be truly fair, you have to also compare what Warren recieved as compared to his secretary. That is a much more complicated formula.

[rockfist]

Most Executive Secretaries in Fortune 50 companies would earn six figure salaries...probably not high six figures, but possibly mid six figure.

[thegreekdog]

I'm sure someone has already posted this...

Warren Buffet's Income: $62,855,038 ($39,814,784 taxable)
Warren Buffet's Taxes: $6,900,000 (17.4%)

Debra Bosanek's Income: $200,000-$500,000
Debra Bosanek's Taxes: $70,000-$175,000 (35%)

To recap, Warren paid $6,900,000 and Bosanek paid $122,500. Who paid more?

OMFG!!!!!!!!! BOSANEK PAYS MOAR!!!!!! OBAMA FAIR OBAMA SAVE US!!!!!!111111!!!111 THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED!!!!!!! ONLAH SEVEN MILLION TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

You missed the part where this was shown to be incorrect?

BUT.. to be truly fair, you have to also compare what Warren recieved as compared to his secretary. That is a much more complicated formula.

No, it's really not a much more complicated formula. Here's the real deal:

(1) Someone decides that the rich are not paying enough taxes because capital gains (i.e. gains on investment income) is taxed at a rate of 15%, while earned income is generally taxed at higher rates. Thus, if you earn $1 million from investment income you pay somewhere around $150,000 of tax, but if you earn $1 million from earned income, you could pay somewhere around $350,000 of tax.

(2) Warren Buffett decides that rich people should pay more taxes. He points out how his secretary (who has earned income) makes less than Buffett does (he has investment income), but the secretary has a higher tax rate. This is likely a true statement.

(3) Warren Buffett supports an increase on the tax rate for the rich, specifically the President's plan.

(4) The President's plan does NOT call for an increase in the tax rate for investment income. Does NOT. Therefore, to the extent the President's plan passes Congress and is signed by the President, the only people who will have an increase in tax are those that have earned income in excess of $150,000. Erego, after the President's plan becomes law, Warren Buffett's effective tax rate will still be less than his secretary's.

This is an attempt by the president to have it both ways - he raises taxes on the "rich" without raising taxes on the people that give him the most money (the rich people who make their income off of investments, like Buffett).

[Symmetry]

This thread is confusing. It looks like Player is exactly correct that Warren Buffet's secretary doesn't earn a six figure salary, and that she pays a higher effective tax rate, but people are still saying Player's wrong, while admitting that her points are correct.

Is it just because Player is posting this information?

Seems like a bit of a dud thread.

[thegreekdog]

This thread is confusing. It looks like Player is exactly correct that Warren Buffet's secretary doesn't earn a six figure salary, and that she pays a higher effective tax rate, but people are still saying Player's wrong, while admitting that her points are correct.

Is it just because Player is posting this information?

Seems like a bit of a dud thread.

I guess you don't understand the issues then. Makes sense that you wouldn't considering you're from the UK.

[Symmetry]

This thread is confusing. It looks like Player is exactly correct that Warren Buffet's secretary doesn't earn a six figure salary, and that she pays a higher effective tax rate, but people are still saying Player's wrong, while admitting that her points are correct.

Is it just because Player is posting this information?

Seems like a bit of a dud thread.

I guess you don't understand the issues then. Makes sense that you wouldn't considering you're from the UK.

I get the basics, and I've read a fair bit about it, but I don't get the antagonism. Sum it up for your colonial masters.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm... I thought I explained it earlier in this thread.

Using Warren Buffett's secretary as an example of how middle class people have a higher effective tax rate than rich people is a disingenuous way to try to raise taxes on earned income when to raise taxes on earned income will not make Warren Buffet have a higher tax rate than his secretary.

Alternatively, you could just read the rest of the thread.

[Symmetry]

Hmm... I thought I explained it earlier in this thread.

Using Warren Buffett's secretary as an example of how middle class people have a higher effective tax rate than rich people is a disingenuous way to try to raise taxes on earned income when to raise taxes on earned income will not make Warren Buffet have a higher tax rate than his secretary.

Alternatively, you could just read the rest of the thread.

I mainly picked up this stuff:

I just find it incredibly amusing that if the Bush tax cuts were removed, there are two awesome results:

(1) Warren Buffett would not be paying any significant additional taxes and his effective tax rate would not increase
(2) Warren Buffett's secretary's taxes and tax rate would increase (assuming she makes between $200,000 and $500,000).

Because if you tell me she makes less than $200,000, then I'm telling you she doesn't have a higher effective tax rate than Buffett.

If Warren Buffett's secretary makes $60,000 of adjusted gross income and files singly and if she has no deductions, her effective tax rate is 18.54% which is 1% higher than Warren Buffett's effective tax rate. I've highlighted the important part of that sentence.

(2) Warren Buffett decides that rich people should pay more taxes. He points out how his secretary (who has earned income) makes less than Buffett does (he has investment income), but the secretary has a higher tax rate. This is likely a true statement.

That's quite a bit of a climb down from your original assumptions of her earnings and her tax rate in comparison to Buffet.

[thegreekdog]

That's quite a bit of a climb down from your original assumptions of her earnings and her tax rate in comparison to Buffet.

Again, maybe it's because you're a Brit, but perhaps you're not getting the point. I'm not sure. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are poor. Perhaps you don't understand the Forbe writer's point (and by extension mine and everyone else's in this thread except Player).

[Symmetry]

That's quite a bit of a climb down from your original assumptions of her earnings and her tax rate in comparison to Buffet.

Again, maybe it's because you're a Brit, but perhaps you're not getting the point. I'm not sure. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are poor. Perhaps you don't understand the Forbe writer's point (and by extension mine and everyone else's in this thread except Player).

So sum it up for your colonial masters.

[thegreekdog]

That's quite a bit of a climb down from your original assumptions of her earnings and her tax rate in comparison to Buffet.

Again, maybe it's because you're a Brit, but perhaps you're not getting the point. I'm not sure. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are poor. Perhaps you don't understand the Forbe writer's point (and by extension mine and everyone else's in this thread except Player).

So sum it up for your colonial masters.

I've already done so twice. You may not know this, but I vowed recently to stop responding to Player's posts because she doesn't read what I've written or provide any of her own evidence. It has worked somewhat well so far. Well, I'm sorry to tell you, you've also now made that short list, at least with respect to this thread. Enjoy!

[Symmetry]

That's quite a bit of a climb down from your original assumptions of her earnings and her tax rate in comparison to Buffet.

Again, maybe it's because you're a Brit, but perhaps you're not getting the point. I'm not sure. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are poor. Perhaps you don't understand the Forbe writer's point (and by extension mine and everyone else's in this thread except Player).

So sum it up for your colonial masters.

I've already done so twice. You may not know this, but I vowed recently to stop responding to Player's posts because she doesn't read what I've written or provide any of her own evidence. It has worked somewhat well so far. Well, I'm sorry to tell you, you've also now made that short list, at least with respect to this thread. Enjoy!

Perhaps vowing not to respond to people who disagree with you isn't the best course in a debate. Player is tough to argue with, but here she seems to be pretty much in the right.

I'll bow out of this one, mainly because this seems to be more of a personal issue between posters than an actual thread. I'll leave you alone with the people who agree with you.

[thegreekdog]

Man, you're good. You should be a professional honor besmircher! Because you've done such a good job, I'll make the point one last time (in a very organized fashion so as not to be too confusing... I know we write different languages):

Discussion Number One

- A number of Democrats, including the president, have pointed out that the wealthy in this country pay a relatively small effective tax rate on their income. This is true and it is true because the tax is imposed on mainly investment income, which is taxed at a rate of 15%.
- Warren Buffett pointed out that his secretary has a higher effective tax rate than he does (i.e. higher than 15%) because he makes his income from investments and she makes her income from a job (i.e. earned income). Earned income is taxed at higher rates for some people depending upon the tax bracket. If Warren Buffett earned his income entirely from working (i.e. earned income) he would have the highest tax rate possible, much higher than his secretary's tax rate.
- In order for Warren Buffett's secretary to have a higher tax rate than Mr. Buffett, she must have earned a significant amount of money and not had any deductions for anything. The latter is highly unlikely. Therefore, I do not believe she has a higher effective tax rate than Warren Buffett.
- The president's use of Warren Buffett's secretary is therefore based on a lie because she doesn't actually have a higher effective tax rate than Warren Buffett.

Discussion Number Two

- If Warren Buffett's secretary has a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett, and if we want to fix that particular issue, then we need to raise the tax rate on investment income, not on earned income.
- If we raise the tax rate on investment income to 25%, Warren Buffett's tax rate goes up to 25% and is higher than his secretary's 18% effective tax rate.
- The Democrats in Congress and the president want to raise the tax rate on earned income, not investment income.
- If we raise the tax rate on earned income, Warren Buffett's tax rate does not change. Therefore, his secretary will still have a higher effective tax rate than him.
- The Demcorats and the president using Warren Buffett's secretary is disingenuous (assuming she does have a higher effective tax rate) because their plan does not call for the increase in the tax rate on investments and will not fix the problem of Warren Buffett's secretary having a higher tax rate than he does.

[rockfist]

An executive secretary to someone like Buffet most assuredly earns six figures, anyone claiming otherwise does not understand the salary structure in the business world in our country.

[GreecePwns]

This is not a matter of debate, rockfist. Buffet is on the record saying he pays her $60,000. There are numerous sources.
http://goingconcern.com/post/everybody- ... ix-figures
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/28 ... verbruggen
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ts-rebuff/

Also, while I did skim through this thread and might have missed it, we have not talked about the proposed "Buffet rule" which would set a minimum tax rate at 30% for all income (capital gains or salary) above $1 million). While its not in consideration by Congress, he's been pushing it a lot lately.

[BigBallinStalin]

That first link doesn't explain anything. It's just polemic with a dash of ad hominem attacks while cheerleading for Warren Buffet. It does however quote and link to a website which quotes from Times Online (with no link). Nothing within that series of quotes and past the forest of polemic directly quotes Buffet saying that his secretary makes $60,000.

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

Is that her total income? Did Buffet actually say that?

I couldn't find Times Online which allegedly states what Warren Buffet said. Could all this be (un)intentional propaganda to make groups of people rebind themselves to their ideologies?


The second link confirms the alleged fact, by directing the reader to GP's third link, which states:

Mr. Buffett also wrote that his secretary, who makes $60,000 a year, pays over 30 percent of her income in taxes. The Internal Revenue Service reports the average tax rate for someone making that amount is 11.6 percent. Even adding on payroll taxes, she isn’t paying anywhere near 30 percent.

Any link to that fact?

Nope. If there's no way one can dispute a fact, we may as well take things at face value.

[Night Strike]

That first link doesn't explain anything. It's just polemic with a dash of ad hominem attacks while cheerleading for Warren Buffet. It does however quote and link to a website which quotes from Times Online (with no link). Nothing within that series of quotes and past the forest of polemic directly quotes Buffet saying that his secretary makes $60,000.

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

Is that her total income? Did Buffet actually say that?

I couldn't find Times Online which allegedly states what Warren Buffet said. Could all this be (un)intentional propaganda to make groups of people rebind themselves to their ideologies?


The second link confirms the alleged fact, by directing the reader to GP's third link, which states:

Mr. Buffett also wrote that his secretary, who makes $60,000 a year, pays over 30 percent of her income in taxes. The Internal Revenue Service reports the average tax rate for someone making that amount is 11.6 percent. Even adding on payroll taxes, she isn’t paying anywhere near 30 percent.

Any link to that fact?

Nope. If there's no way one can dispute a fact, we may as well take things at face value.

That statement HAS to be a lie simply by looking at the 2011 tax table. IF she makes 60k, is single (or married filing separately, and takes exactly zero deductions (not even the standard deductions that you essentially have to take simply by filling out the form, she would ONLY be paying 18.55% in federal income taxes. It is impossible for her to be forced to pay 30% of her income in federal income taxes at that wage.

[rockfist]

This is not a matter of debate, rockfist. Buffet is on the record saying he pays her $60,000. There are numerous sources.
http://goingconcern.com/post/everybody- ... ix-figures
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/28 ... verbruggen
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ts-rebuff/

Also, while I did skim through this thread and might have missed it, we have not talked about the proposed "Buffet rule" which would set a minimum tax rate at 30% for all income (capital gains or salary) above $1 million). While its not in consideration by Congress, he's been pushing it a lot lately.

His expectations for a secretary must be ridiculously low. As I said high powered executive secretaries earn six figures.

And its clear that the 2nd article contains lies. It is not possible to pay 30% of your income in taxes on 60K unless you overpay.

[jimboston]

This is not a matter of debate, rockfist. Buffet is on the record saying he pays her $60,000. There are numerous sources.
http://goingconcern.com/post/everybody- ... ix-figures
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/28 ... verbruggen
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ts-rebuff/

Also, while I did skim through this thread and might have missed it, we have not talked about the proposed "Buffet rule" which would set a minimum tax rate at 30% for all income (capital gains or salary) above $1 million). While its not in consideration by Congress, he's been pushing it a lot lately.

If he's only paying her a $60K salary he Most Assuredly is compensating her in other ways as well... Likely through BH stock. There is no way that warren Buffet's Excutive Assistant is making less than $100K in total compensation. It's a lie.

[TheGeneral2112]

Here is the bottom line. Warren is paying a f*ck of a lot more in taxes than his secretary ever will. The line that is ALMOST ALWAYS USED (His secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffet) is deceptive because Warren Buffet's pays more actual dollars. Plus, let's be honest. How long do Warren's taxes fund the government? How long do his secretary's taxes fund the government?

America, the land of the free, the home of the brave, and the country that reaches deeper into your pockets the more you succeed.

kkthxbaiiiiiiii

[thegreekdog]

Symmetry never read my post... I'm so sad. I feel used.