You know who needs to pipe down? Warren Buffett, that is correct. I'm pretty much over his act. And here's why:
All I keep hearing him say lately is that the rich should pay more taxes. That's his gig. Telling us that the rich should pay more taxes. He accentuates this stance by saying that he pays less in tax than his secretary. (I have to imagine he's talking percentages there. If he's talking actual dollar figures, then it's just game over.) And his solution is that the "rich" should pay more. Allow me to briefly explain why I can't stand to hear that anymore.
First, taxing the rich more isn't going to solve the problem because it still wouldn't generate enough money to make a difference. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be taxed, but I don't think that they should be overtaxed. What say we cut a butt load of spending first and then see where we're at, OK?
Second, define "rich". Let me tell you that if you're making, say, $100,000 per year in San Francisco, you are far from "rich". You're doing fine, but you're not rich. Now, take that same $100,000 per year salary and move it to some place like Kansas or Iowa (both lovely places). Now you're "rich". So, are we going to tax both of those guys the same even though due to their living situations that they're not really the same at all? I don't know what Warren Buffett's response would be to that, as I haven't heard it proposed. (Actually, I never hear about adjusting people's income based on cost of living in their area. Never. And it's totally a factor. God, this is why I hate the media.)
And finally, if Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes, he CAN! You can pay as much in income tax as you would jolly well like. Nothing's stopping you. Just hand it over and they will gladly take it. But I haven't seen Warren Buffett doing that just yet. All I get is him yammering on about how he'll give it to them if they tax him, but he doesn't seem to be offering it up just on its own. Interesting. And really freaking annoying.
All I keep hearing him say lately is that the rich should pay more taxes. That's his gig. Telling us that the rich should pay more taxes. He accentuates this stance by saying that he pays less in tax than his secretary. (I have to imagine he's talking percentages there. If he's talking actual dollar figures, then it's just game over.) And his solution is that the "rich" should pay more. Allow me to briefly explain why I can't stand to hear that anymore.
First, taxing the rich more isn't going to solve the problem because it still wouldn't generate enough money to make a difference. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be taxed, but I don't think that they should be overtaxed. What say we cut a butt load of spending first and then see where we're at, OK?
Second, define "rich". Let me tell you that if you're making, say, $100,000 per year in San Francisco, you are far from "rich". You're doing fine, but you're not rich. Now, take that same $100,000 per year salary and move it to some place like Kansas or Iowa (both lovely places). Now you're "rich". So, are we going to tax both of those guys the same even though due to their living situations that they're not really the same at all? I don't know what Warren Buffett's response would be to that, as I haven't heard it proposed. (Actually, I never hear about adjusting people's income based on cost of living in their area. Never. And it's totally a factor. God, this is why I hate the media.)
And finally, if Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes, he CAN! You can pay as much in income tax as you would jolly well like. Nothing's stopping you. Just hand it over and they will gladly take it. But I haven't seen Warren Buffett doing that just yet. All I get is him yammering on about how he'll give it to them if they tax him, but he doesn't seem to be offering it up just on its own. Interesting. And really freaking annoying.
No comments:
Post a Comment