If tax rates are going to be paid and progressive (they actually aren't), then they'll have to be coercive. I think what Mr. Buffet is arguing here is that the rich need to be coerced into paying more in taxes than they currently do. I'm inclined to agree with him, even if I have to hold my nose as I do.
What he's saying by advocating tax raises is "I will pay more if I know that everyone else will also pay more." He's not interested in paying $XM to reduce the debt by $XM, but he would happily pay a personal cost of $XM if it meant reducing the debt by $XB.
(This is called "collective action," and it's also Groupon's business model.)
No he isn't. He's saying precisely the opposite:
"I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax...But for those making more than $1 million...I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more...I would suggest an additional increase in rate."
More is a relative term, for instance he's not being taxed out of a holiday, eating out one or two times a month, having enough food to support his family, etc.
The utility on that 7million is much lower for him than say 20k a year would be for someone making less than 100,000 a year.And no I am not talking utility, but cold hard cash numbers.
You rent, electricity, food and clothing doesn't go up because you double your income (unless you move, but then you presumably get better housing too). Why should your tax?
As a business owner, I am perfectly happy to pay more as my income goes up, because my business depends on a well-run society in a million ways.
For the anecdotal insight on this: paying about 20k a year in federal taxes with my current annual salary is nothing compared to the impact of the 5k or so a year in taxes I paid when I was a poor waiter/college student in terms of its impact on my budget. At this point I could easily pay out an extra 10 or 20k with out severely impacting my quality of life or rate of savings; corollary, a few extra thousand back when I wasn't making all that much money would have been the difference between sleeping on an air mattress versus a real bed, or having enough good (as in nutritionally worth while) food to eat.
So yes, your tax should go up with it as well.
I really like open debate and discussion, but why do we go through this charade of nitpicking? It's clear that my post supports progressive taxation, so why get all crapped up about some non-existent ambiguity around the word more. If you're opposed to progressive taxation, and you think that warren buffet pays so much "more" in the absolute under a regressive or flat tax that it's fair to tax him at a lower rate than your average middle class worker, by all means, express your opinion. I certainly wouldn't downmod someone for disagreeing with me, and I think that probably goes for most of the people on hacker news.
If believe A should B I am A Therefore I believe I should B.
A = rich people B = pay more taxes
as greenspun says: "The federal government funds roads and airports that we all enjoy using. The feds pay for health care for the poor and the old. Our tax dollars pay for intrepid military personnel who go out and kill angry foreigners (in most cases) before they can arrive on U.S. soil and kill Americans here at home. For a non-profit organization of its size, the federal government is surprisingly efficient. Most federal employees work in big box-like office buildings, not in $300 million monuments to an architect's ego. George W. Bush gets paid only $400,000 per year, less than half of what a lot of university presidents earn."[1]
I personally have a somewhat less charitable view of effects of military action, at least the military action during my lifetime, but I do think that most of the personnel involved do believe that they are doing the right thing, and those other things, roads and healthcare and stuff; those are pretty great to have.
Now, I'm too lazy to dig up non-greenspun references, but it seems that many non-profits serve up rather nice salaries, for rather inefficient work[2]
[1]http://web.archive.org/web/20090217002255/http://philip.gree...
[2]http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/07/27/where-your-cha...
Who pays what in taxes is really a diversion.
The "who" is actually pretty important.
Tax the working man more, and you'll discourage working. Tax the rich, and he might move to another country.
There are many ways to raise money for the state, and none is really "fair". There will always somebody who'll be screwed in some way.
Most major donors contribute to things they can put their name on like buildings (see Stanford campus). It's difficult for even most charities to cover operating costs (i.e. labor) with only donations. Most have to apply for grants or do lots of funny numbers to keep their administration costs (i.e. labor) low.
The American Red Cross, a large, established, and reputable charity, has about 9% general and administrative costs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross
Medicare, a large, inefficient government fiasco (note: irony) has 3% overhead: http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourc...
Many charities do far worse than the ARC.
That's the real rub about this deficit/debt limit drama: it wouldn't be so bad if the government spent in areas to increase future GDP. However, the government is basically an old-age insurance program with a large army. I don't see these expenditures contributing greatly to future GDP.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
One has to ask, if any super rich person really considered the U.S. Government a worthwhile investment, why are they donating to various charities instead of to the Treasury?