Warren Buffet's Secretary

[thegreekdog]

I thought this was amusing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... 00000year/

[BigBallinStalin]

Mistakes are made with political marketing.

[thegreekdog]

Mistakes are made with political marketing.

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).

[PLAYER57832]

Mistakes are made with political marketing.

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).

She does not make between 200 and 500K

[thegreekdog]

Mistakes are made with political marketing.

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).

She does not make between 200 and 500K

What does she make?

Shit, I broke my own self-imposed ban of responding to your posts. But this seems pretty easy - Player, find out how much she makes. Forbes magazine doesn't know, but you apparently have the inside scoop.

EDIT - Also, read the Forbes article first. 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.

[BigBallinStalin]

At least the Forbes article presented something behind their claim.

I picture PLAYER saying, "she does not make between 200 and 500K" while she waves her hand before you--as if performing a Jedi mind trick.

[KoolBak]

[2dimes]

I thought this was going to be one of those Jessica Hahn pictorial kind of things.

[Dukasaur]

What I want to know is: what does Jimmy Buffet's bartender make?

[Haggis_McMutton]

First comment in the article says:

Paul,
I have no idea how much money Warren Buffett’s secretary earns and perhaps she does earn more than $200,000. But your post is based on two incorrect premises.

1. Buffett’s tax rate, as a percentage of adjusted gross income, is NOT higher than 12%——it is actually just 11%, as you can read in my post here. When you hear a higher rate discussed, it is based on his taxable income (after his substantial deductions for charitable giving.) So, just based on AGI, he pays an income tax rate below the rate for those with AGI of $100,000 to $200,000.

2. Buffett doesn’t contend that his entire staff pays a higher effective INCOME tax rate than he does (whatever you want to calculate it on). What he says is that they pay a higher tax on their incomes when payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) are included.
For those who are curious about the average effective INCOME tax rates at various income levels, they are in my post here. and I have pasted them below.

Here, for 2008, are the average effective individual income tax rates, as a percentage of adjusted gross income, for various income groups. Note that the last number is for the 400 highest income returns the IRS got that year.

Size of AGI Average Tax
(in $) 2008 % of AGI

1-25,000 1.76
25-50,000 5.32
50-100,000 8.41
100-200,000 12.59
200-500,000 19.50
500-1,000,000 23.92
1-10,000,000 24.47
10,000,000 + 20.89
109,736,000+ 18.11
(top 400)

Note, I don't really give a shit about any of this, mostly read that as a means to procrastinate, so I probably will be forced to respond to any counterarguments with funny pictures involving small animals.

Edit: 10 more seconds of procrastination revealed the fifth or so comment:
http://tusb.stanford.edu/2007/07/warren_buffet_has_a_lower_tax.html
Apparently she makes 60k a year.

[thegreekdog]

Edit: 10 more seconds of procrastination revealed the fifth or so comment:
http://tusb.stanford.edu/2007/07/warren ... r_tax.html
Apparently she makes 60k a year.

Nice! I'm going to try to calculate her effective tax rate.

Related aside - I wonder if Mr. Buffett has given her stock options as part of her compensation.

[BigBallinStalin]

2007?

Was this a different secretary?

[PLAYER57832]

At least the Forbes article presented something behind their claim.

I picture PLAYER saying, "she does not make between 200 and 500K" while she waves her hand before you--as if performing a Jedi mind trick.

Becuase its ALREADY been publicized many times. The author here nicely pretends that is not the case.

Anyway, Haggis posted one link:

Edit: 10 more seconds of procrastination revealed the fifth or so comment:
http://tusb.stanford.edu/2007/07/warren ... r_tax.html
Apparently she makes 60k a year.
Haggis_McMutton

That said, one point it makes is valid, has been presented many times... specifically that is not likely she pays 30%. (unless, as noted, she is married to someone making a good deal).

However, the real point is whether it is just that investment income is taxed at such a lower rate than earned income. Most people say no... but many at the top seem happy with the current system.


AND.. reversing the Bush tax cuts is just another issue. They mostly need to be reversed (seem to remember a couple of pieces were sensible, just not the whole package).

[thegreekdog]

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.

[rockfist]

I am assuming they are including payroll taxes in the calculation...and possibly both the employee and employer paid portion to reach 34%.

[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.