Warren Buffet's Secretary

[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.

[Symmetry]

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

I read it, but I said I'd bow out. I read most of the posts you write as they're almost always well thought out. I did also say that I'd bow out of the thread though, and I was trying to keep my word. I'll bow back in to assure you that you shouldn't feel used.

I still find this thread confusing, as it veers between arguing that Buffet (of all people) didn't understand the tax system when he made the statement about his tax rate, or perhaps by implication that he lied. And so did his secretary.

And then there's the speculation on what she earns. The only sources provided so far say 60k, but apparently it's more, just because, ya know, it must be more, and anyone posting actual links to a source saying 60k is posting unreliable links. Source: just cos she must be earning more than 60k.

Then I think we shifted into Obama lies territory, which gets a little dull, but works for the conservative echo chamber.

And now we have TheGeneral (actual rank on the site Lieutenant, but you can't fault his ambition) arguing that the bottom line is that he pays more in terms of money. Which is a pointless argument and could justify a 100% tax rate on the poorest and a 1% tax rate on the wealthiest and still work as justification for a radically unequal tax code.

[thegreekdog]

Perhaps this will help you put my arguments in context.

(1) I'm indifferent as to what Warren Buffett's secretary makes. What I'm less indifferent to is the notion that the Democrats' plan to raise taxes on the "rich" is a fix on the problem of Warren Buffett having a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

(1.5) It is a problem when passive investments are taxed at a much lower rate than earned income, especially when the message is "we want the rich to pay their fair share."

(2) I want capital gains tax rates to increase. I want millionaires and billinonaires to pay more taxes when their income is earned on passive investments. I want those tax rates to at least equal the tax rates on earned income. That also happens to be what Warren Buffett wants as well - he wants capital gains tax rates to be increased.

(3) The Democrats' plan does not raise capital gains tax rates.

I'm not criticizing Warren Buffett (or his secretary). I'm criticizing the current administration for using a prop (Buffett's secretary) to support a bill that will not fix the problem illustrated by the prop. There is no highly visible plan in Congress to raise capital gains tax rates (probably because the people that give money to Congresspeople are the people that would have to pay those higher rates). The Democrats' current plan will raise taxes on rich people, sure. But it will raise taxes on the earned income of rich people, not on their investments.

So, for the fourteenth (approximate) time in this thread, the problem posed by Warren Buffett and his secretary will not be fixed.

[jimboston]

And then there's the speculation on what she earns. The only sources provided so far say 60k, but apparently it's more, just because, ya know, it must be more, and anyone posting actual links to a source saying 60k is posting unreliable links. Source: just cos she must be earning more than 60k.

... and you are ignoring the points and the obvious math and common sense.

No one is saying that Warren or his secretary outright lied... though one can essentially lie by being disingenuous.

Speaking for myself I am saying that Buffet / the President / the Secretary /the media are knowingly misleading and/or misrepresenting the facts if they say she "was paid" only $60K year. The facts to support this are simple...
1) If she only earned $60K her tax rate would NOT be 30%.
2) That salary is not consistent with the 'market' for Executive Assistants in her position... .e. supporting executives like Warren Buffet.

It is possible her salary might be only $60K... but she is must assuredly receiving other compensation. So let's be honest and factor that into the equation.

If they want to parade this women as an example of inequality in the tax code then they should release her tax returns to the public. Full disclosure or SHUT THE f*ck UP.

[jimboston]

I want capital gains tax rates to increase. I want millionaires and billinonaires to pay more taxes when their income is earned on passive investments. I want those tax rates to at least equal the tax rates on earned income. That also happens to be what Warren Buffett wants as well - he wants capital gains tax rates to be increased.

Raising Capital Gains tax to 30% is a bad idea.

Perhaps to 20%... while also dropping the top income tax bracket to 20%.

[thegreekdog]

I want capital gains tax rates to increase. I want millionaires and billinonaires to pay more taxes when their income is earned on passive investments. I want those tax rates to at least equal the tax rates on earned income. That also happens to be what Warren Buffett wants as well - he wants capital gains tax rates to be increased.

Raising Capital Gains tax to 30% is a bad idea.

Perhaps to 20%... while also dropping the top income tax bracket to 20%.

I don't know if it's a bad idea, but history has shown that an increased capital gains rate does not necessarily lead to increased federal tax revenue.

[BigBallinStalin]

I want capital gains tax rates to increase. I want millionaires and billinonaires to pay more taxes when their income is earned on passive investments. I want those tax rates to at least equal the tax rates on earned income. That also happens to be what Warren Buffett wants as well - he wants capital gains tax rates to be increased.

Raising Capital Gains tax to 30% is a bad idea.

Perhaps to 20%... while also dropping the top income tax bracket to 20%.

I don't know if it's a bad idea, but history has shown that an increased capital gains rate does not necessarily lead to increased federal tax revenue.

It simply creates an incentive to not invest in stocks (I think bonds as well, if they're counted as capital gains). Since saving/investment leads to the accumulation of wealth (thus future production, employment, goods, etc.), a tax that discourages this doesn't seem like a good idea.

If there was a proportional decrease in income taxes, then I wouldn't be as upset about an increased tax on capital gains.

[thegreekdog]

I want capital gains tax rates to increase. I want millionaires and billinonaires to pay more taxes when their income is earned on passive investments. I want those tax rates to at least equal the tax rates on earned income. That also happens to be what Warren Buffett wants as well - he wants capital gains tax rates to be increased.

Raising Capital Gains tax to 30% is a bad idea.

Perhaps to 20%... while also dropping the top income tax bracket to 20%.

I don't know if it's a bad idea, but history has shown that an increased capital gains rate does not necessarily lead to increased federal tax revenue.

It simply creates an incentive to not invest in stocks (I think bonds as well, if they're counted as capital gains). Since saving/investment leads to the accumulation of wealth (thus future production, employment, goods, etc.), a tax that discourages this doesn't seem like a good idea.

If there was a proportional decrease in income taxes, then I wouldn't be as upset about an increased tax on capital gains.

It does not create an incentive to not invest in stocks. It creates a disincentive to trade stocks (i.e. sell them).

[PLAYER57832]

It simply creates an incentive to not invest in stocks (I think bonds as well, if they're counted as capital gains). Since saving/investment leads to the accumulation of wealth (thus future production, employment, goods, etc.), a tax that discourages this doesn't seem like a good idea.
.

This is the whole problem. It is NOT accumulation of wealth in stocks that assures production and employment. It is, instead, average people buying stuff and moving the economy forward through their purchases that really build our economy.

A good company doesn't need special tax rates to attract investment. It just needs to be a good company. Tax rates might shift money from one location to another, but only to the point that other factors are equal.

[BigBallinStalin]

It does not create an incentive to not invest in stocks. It creates a disincentive to trade stocks (i.e. sell them).

Usually, people invest in stocks with the expectation to gain after exchanging them for cash-money. Sure, there's stocks that pay dividends, but eventually it's exchanged.


Since stocks must ultimately be traded, how does an increased tax on capital gains not create a disincentive to invest in stocks?

[BigBallinStalin]

It simply creates an incentive to not invest in stocks (I think bonds as well, if they're counted as capital gains). Since saving/investment leads to the accumulation of wealth (thus future production, employment, goods, etc.), a tax that discourages this doesn't seem like a good idea.
.

This is the whole problem. It is NOT accumulation of wealth in stocks that assures production and employment. It is, instead, average people buying stuff and moving the economy forward through their purchases that really build our economy.

How is that stuff created? I.e., how do businesses raise money?