Look up the Warren Buffet article from about three months ago. We discussed it here on the board and he was pretty clear that he skates on his taxes because that is what the tax code allows him to do. I don't know what article you're referring to, but if it mentioned anything like this: <I>Warren Buffett doesn’t need Bush’s plan. He is already doing a phenomenal job of avoiding multiple taxation. By his own admission, more than 99% of his $30+ billion in net worth is invested in his company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. He owns 31% of the company. In 2002, Berkshire Hathaway made $6.435 billion in profit, on which it paid $2.134 billion in income taxes, a tax rate of 33%. Buffett, who owns controlling interest in the company, has never allowed it to pay a dividend, therefore he avoids any taxes on dividends. He has never sold a share of BH stock, so he has never paid any capital gains taxes. Finally, his stock will go into a family-run foundation when he dies. By his own figures, the total death taxes his estate will pay will be less than 1% of its worth. </I> Then that is not tax avoidance in any form. He doesn't get dividends, so he doesn't pay taxes on them. He doesn't sell stock, so he doesn't pay taxes on it. However, if he ever does sell the stock (or his kids do, or whatever), he'll pay the taxes. Like I said, he can <I>delay</I> taxes, but avoidance is a hell of a lot harder.
Nope, it was an article that he wrote himself in which he espoused taxing the rich much more heavily than they currently are. He also mentioned that he was able to reduce his tax liability incredibly with accountants and lawyers. One other thing to keep in mind is that with the Bush tax cut, next year the capital gains taxes are at 0% so Buffett could conceivably sell stock and not pay taxes on it at all. If you defer taxes long enough, eventually a policy shift here or there will allow you to avoid the tax altogether. Next year will be a boom year for rich people cashing in stock and selling property without having to pay any tax at all on the proceeds. The wonders of a few well placed lobbyists.
Wow. I didn't think I would have to defend this point. In the 19th century, there was no social safety nets, no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, ... Being poor then was much harder than now. (I am in no way saying that today's poor have it easy.) BTW I am not defending GWB. His political agenda is certainly focused on making the super rich happy. Again my biggest problem with GWB's tax cuts is that they are not balanced out with spending cuts. Of course, there is probably no way that GWB could politically get away with that much cutting. The careful reader would note that Krigamn was comparing perspectives across multiple decades. Thus, our current situation spans many Presidents and Congresses. While I gleefully bludgeon GWB regualrly on this board, I can not blame him for the current situation (although he is making it worse).
Ah...misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about the size of the gaps in the class structure in your comparison, not poverty in general.... and I had no economic data from the 19th century handy to back that up. Hence "I can't necessarily agree..." ..and, andymooner's right, the reason we have Social Security, Medicaid, etc.,. is because of the Progressive (and practical) politics of the era - FDR in particular looked around and said, "Oh ****. We better change something or the working classes are going to crucify our asses" - and, voila, a social safety net was developed. And now..that safety net is a threadbare and almost useless semblance of its former self. Either way, it's a small and rather insignificant point to quibble over considering the scope of the issue. Even if it was worse a hundred years ago, that doesn't mean the ****'s not going to hit the fan tomorrow.
