Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seems he isn't too happy about having to pay taxes after all.

From the story:

NetJets, the private-aircraft company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., sued the U.S. over excise taxes and penalties totaling $642.7 million assessed against the company.

The Internal Revenue Service improperly assessed the so- called ticket tax, an excise tax on payments made in exchange for air transportation, NetJets said in its complaint in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, dated Nov. 14.

Apparently NetJets is correct in their assertion here. But that's not important. What's important is that Warren Buffet, the man who was upset about having such a low tax bill, (through one of his companies) is suing the IRS to avoid paying taxes.

Advocating tax reform doesn't mean one wants to be cheated either.

There is also a difference bewtwen Warren Buffet and a company owned by a company owned by Warren Buffet.

To wit, this is tangentially connected to Warren Buffet, and is about being wrongfully charged to much in taxes, not about tax reform.

Apparently wishing for the richest tier of Americans to pay a higher tax rate is now analogous to being willing to pay any tax, no matter how erroneous.

biccat wrote:Apparently NetJets is correct in their assertion here. But that's not important. What's important is

Ahtman wrote:Advocating tax reform doesn't mean one wants to be cheated either.

How is it being cheated to pay one's "fair share"?

Ahtman wrote:There is also a difference bewtwen Warren Buffet and a company owned by a company owned by Warren Buffet.

If Mr. Buffet is concerned about not paying enough in taxes, it's not inappropriate to ask why he's trying to avoid taxes on companies he owns (he is the majority shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway, IIRC). Any taxes that a company he owns does not pay translates into higher income for him.

Ouze nailed it with his image macro.

biccat wrote:If Mr. Buffet is concerned about not paying enough in taxes, it's not inappropriate to ask why he's trying to avoid taxes on companies he owns (he is the majority shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway, IIRC). Any taxes that a company he owns does not pay translates into higher income for him.

If it is a tax "his" company should not be paying, why should the company pay it?

I have to say this entire topic seems to be trying to make a story where there is none. Now, if the company were not paying a tax that they were actually supposed to pay, I would agree with you [that they should be paying that tax]...

Yeah, OP isn't a fair analysis.

This is a little closer to home. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ#ixzz1WRoIlYSf

But still, the only way I'd call him a hypocrite is if he took loopholes to reduce his own taxes. Even then, the fact he could do it probably means those loopholes should be cut off, if possible.

biccat wrote:
If Mr. Buffet is concerned about not paying enough in taxes, it's not inappropriate to ask why he's trying to avoid taxes on companies he owns (he is the majority shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway, IIRC). Any taxes that a company he owns does not pay translates into higher income for him.

Buffet owns something like 34% of Berkshire's voting power, so he isn't the majority shareholder.

That aside, there is a distinction between believing that the state should work harder to maximize revenue derived from a given class, and working to minimize one's own contribution to that generation of revenue.

I believe they call the result of such a dispute "competition".

dogma wrote:That aside, there is a distinction between believing that the state should work harder to maximize revenue derived from a given class, and working to minimize one's own contribution to that generation of revenue.

I believe they call the result of such a dispute "competition".

Actually the term is called "rent seeking."

You should look it up.

biccat wrote:
Actually the term is called "rent seeking."

You should look it up.

Rent seeking is a strategy for effective competition against other firms, yes. Of course, this isn't rent seeking, as Buffet is not requesting that the state deprive his competitors of access to opportunities for transaction. After all, they too could bring suit against the state for an incorrectly applied tax.

However, as you're no doubt aware, my comment was directed at your initial argument, which was essentially from hypocrisy, and intended to illustrate how the two positions you claimed to be held by Buffet were not necessarily in conflict; thus illustrating that your argument lacked force. I must therefore conclude that your subsequent deflection indicates that you agree with my criticism, and will work to refine you understanding of the concept of hypocrisy such that you do not make similar mistakes in the future.

I wish you all the best in your quest for understanding.

dogma wrote:I wish you all the best in your quest for understanding.

You always make it so difficult. Especially when your post is directly at odds with the facts.

As you can see from the initial article, there is a per-passenger tax that is levied on public carriers but not on private ones. This is rent seeking because it is a disparate tax that affects one part of the industry while exempting another.

Second, Buffet is asserting that he needs to pay more taxes but he isn't willing to self-impose an additional tax burden (going so far as to challenge the legitimacy of a tax assessment). He presumably believes that the increased tax burden will not impact his ability to do business (which is why he is suggesting it) but wants to impose it on others without regard to the impact on their ability to do business.

This is the standard approach from people like Mr. Buffet. He likes being wealthy, but wants to keep others from getting wealthy as well (after all, that means more competition) by using the same legal system he had access to. This is rent-seeking, because he's seeking to disadvantage others to protect himself.

biccat wrote:
You always make it so difficult.

And you make it effortless.

biccat wrote:
As you can see from the initial article, there is a per-passenger tax that is levied on public carriers but not on private ones. This is rent seeking because it is a disparate tax that affects one part of the industry while exempting another.

No, rent seeking would involve lobbying the state for preferential treatment over competitors, that is not what is happening here. NetJets is merely claiming that a piece of tax legislation, already on file, was applied incorrectly to their activities. This is distinct from attempting to have a new tax applied to competitors.

I suggest you revisit your understanding of rent seeking.

biccat wrote:
Second, Buffet is asserting that he needs to pay more taxes but he isn't willing to self-impose an additional tax burden (going so far as to challenge the legitimacy of a tax assessment). He presumably believes that the increased tax burden will not impact his ability to do business (which is why he is suggesting it) but wants to impose it on others without regard to the impact on their ability to do business.

That's a poor presumption. One can suppose that a thing would impact one's ability to do X, and still believe that it is in the interests of Y to do that thing. In fact, one might even advocate such a course of action on the part of anyone who might enact X.

I am, however, confused, as to why you believe Mr. Buffett wants increased taxes imposed on others, and not himself, given the absence of evidence for such a case. It seems to me that you are attempting to support a conclusion you have already reached through means other than direct reason. I mean, one can attempt to evade taxes, and still believe that the actor doing the taxing should try harder to prevent it; all without cognitive dissonance.

biccat wrote:
This is the standard approach from people like Mr. Buffet. He likes being wealthy, but wants to keep others from getting wealthy as well (after all, that means more competition) by using the same legal system he had access to. This is rent-seeking, because he's seeking to disadvantage others to protect himself.

If that were true, I would expect those people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and stop complaining about how others are using their wealth to inhibit their (inevitable) rise to glory. Real men are self-sufficient, after all.

Silliness aside, it still isn't rent-seeking because Mr. Buffett (or companies which a company which he owns happens to own) has not attempted to somehow disadvantage other potential millionaires/billionaires.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
You always make it so difficult.

And you make it effortless.

I'm glad that you find it so easy to understand my posts. Unfortunate that this is rarely communicated in your responses.

Anyway, you're deflecting the issue (again), and I'm tired.

Read some of your previous posts where you criticize my posting style and pretend that I'm responding to you. Because your post is full of the type of "fallacies" that you normally pretend to care about (and invariably apply improperly).

biccat wrote:
I'm glad that you find it so easy to understand my posts.

You make points?

biccat wrote:
Anyway, you're deflecting the issue (again), and I'm tired.

No, I'm actually attempting to speak to the topic directly, because it seems as though you aren't. I even illustrated this explicitly by using phrases such as "Silliness aside.."

biccat wrote:
Read some of your previous posts where you criticize my posting style and pretend that I'm responding to you. Because your post is full of the type of "fallacies" that you normally pretend to care about (and invariably apply improperly).

Pretend that you're responding to me? You quoted me, and then used the pronoun "you" as the first word of your first sentence. That certainly seems to indicate that you're responding to me, though I suppose you might be confused regarding the nature of the English lanugage, and pronouns.

Either way, if my post if full of the fallacies you believe that I care about, please, list them; I would love the opportunity to improve my argumentative technique.

Ouze nailed it with his image macro.

Was going to type a reply but still blinded in the right eye....

Mod Kilkrazy wrote:No piling on!

Karon...you just gave every straight guy posting on here..a gay moment

Warren Buffet's principles and the actions of a company he is part owner of are consistent. Even though they are likely not relevant as the company is probably not under his immediate control.

The sentiment that the ultra rich should pay more personal tax holds well with more self made millionaires than one might suspect, though many more go to extreme lengths to avoid personal taxation.

However a person who thinks the upper tax bracket should be raised may still want to avoid all corporate tax they can and not appear in any way hypocritical because a millionaires personal tax is Ferrari money, by and large the ultra rich earn enough to cope with almost any level of taxation. Though we can draw a line at the 80%+ tax brackets in loony left governed European countries.
Corporate taxation is something else entirely, it is NOT Ferrari money unless the company is Ferrari. Its money that is spent on infrastructure, overheads wages new projects etc. By and large most companies can spend the money they pay on tax for the better than the government they pay it to. Even if the money doesn't pay for anyones benefits, or a toy for the military or for civil servants and police, it pays for wage earning tax payers, many of whom account for their time far better than the majority of people in the government machine.

This is doubly so for a competent business man like Buffet. The dollar in his companies assets (that is the ones he nurtures rather than strips) is better off than in the US treasury, or equivalent in any other country his companies work in. Thats a hell of a difference than the extra digits in his personal bank balance which for all intent and purpose of what he can practically spend over his remaining years need not be there.

Orlanth wrote:Warren Buffet's principles and the actions of a company he is part owner of are consisnot tent.

Of course they are. As long as you acknowledge that his principles aren't for paying more in taxes, but rather for making others pay more in taxes.

Orlanth wrote:By and large most companies can spend the money they pay on tax for the better than the government they pay it to.

And this is true of individuals as well.

dogma wrote:You make points?

I can deal with you not reading my posts, I just wish you would read your own. Anyway, yes, I did make a point. Please read the thread above.

dogma wrote:Pretend that you're responding to me? You quoted me, and then used the pronoun "you" as the first word of your first sentence. That certainly seems to indicate that you're responding to me, though I suppose you might be confused regarding the nature of the English lanugage, and pronouns.

See, this is the part where you're trying to use misdirection because you can't respond to the actual topic.

I know that you like to troll, and that you consider yourself to be a troll. But I would appreciate it (even if the MODs apparently don't) if you would at least try to stay on topic in these threads.

I can deal with you not reading my posts, I just wish you would read your own. Anyway, yes, I did make a point. Please read the thread above.

Your point was 'hurr look at buffet go against his word'. Except he didn't and several people pointed that out. Now everything thinks you're trolling because you can't actually address dogmas points, just how he responds to yours.

See, this is the part where you're trying to use misdirection because you can't respond to the actual topic.

Except he has. Numerous times. You just don't like it.

biccat wrote:Seems he isn't too happy about having to pay taxes after all.

From the story:

NetJets, the private-aircraft company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., sued the U.S. over excise taxes and penalties totaling $642.7 million assessed against the company.

The Internal Revenue Service improperly assessed the so- called ticket tax, an excise tax on payments made in exchange for air transportation, NetJets said in its complaint in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, dated Nov. 14.

Apparently NetJets is correct in their assertion here. But that's not important. What's important is that Warren Buffet, the man who was upset about having such a low tax bill, (through one of his companies) is suing the IRS to avoid paying taxes.

Let me get this straight.

You are saying a company should pay taxes it does not owe because a person who has ownership in the company feels the tax laws are not adequate? There is a BIG distinction to wanting to pay a fair share of taxes and correcting a tax that was improperly imposed.

Are you saying a business should not correct errors that could influence how many people are on payroll or the price of their stocks? Your whole argument falls apart rather quickly, it all hinges on Mr. Buffet "avoiding taxes" which is clearly not the case as the company corrected a mistake that the IRS improperly assessed a tax. If anything Mr. Buffet and NetJets are practicing good business as they have corrected an error made by the IRS that was detrimental to their company, saving shareholders and employees money and jobs. NetJets and Mr. Buffet are clearly not avoiding taxes, just making sure they are taxed properly. The burden of proof for your argument is lacking, one may say it is pulled out of this air or randomly picked using darts and a dartboard.

Many posters have pointed out your shortcomings in this thread as well as other threads. Your responses or lack thereof are telling. I put in red where I addressed your main point as I am sure you will ignore it.

Biccat I tangled with you before but found your rhetoric distasteful as you strawman or ignore opposing points and often use sophistry as the base of your arguments. Let me make it more clear: Biccat you argue often with falsehoods being the base of your arguments. If your points cannot stand on their own merit why argue a message backed with incorrect statements (statements you willfully use knowing they are false no less)? I am unsure of what you hope to gain by this, an army of misinformed followers? Just baiting and trolling?

biccat wrote:
See, this is the part where you're trying to use misdirection because you can't respond to the actual topic.

I already responded to the original topic, in a good deal of detail. In the sentence in question I was merely responding to your attempt at deflecting my criticism of your position in this thread by way of ad hominem, and further requesting clarification regarding the fallacies I supposedly committed.

biccat wrote:
I know that you like to troll, and that you consider yourself to be a troll. But I would appreciate it (even if the MODs apparently don't) if you would at least try to stay on topic in these threads.

As noted previously, I have already explained why your position is untenable. You attempted to mount a defense of said position, I rebuffed it, and was subsequently met with posts to the effect of...

biccat wrote:
Anyway, you're deflecting the issue (again), and I'm tired.

...despite having spoken explicitly to your line of conjecture regarding rent seeking.

Now, instead of engaging the argument (I suspect because you realize you've already lost, and are attempting to save face) you have chosen to paint me as a troll who doesn't read your posts (despite clear evidence to the contrary).

It is not my fault that you did not properly consider the merits of the position expressed in this thread before posting it, and therefore were not prepared for what were really very obvious points of contention.

J-Roc77 wrote:

biccat wrote:Seems he isn't too happy about having to pay taxes after all.

From the story:

NetJets, the private-aircraft company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., sued the U.S. over excise taxes and penalties totaling $642.7 million assessed against the company.

The Internal Revenue Service improperly assessed the so- called ticket tax, an excise tax on payments made in exchange for air transportation, NetJets said in its complaint in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, dated Nov. 14.

Apparently NetJets is correct in their assertion here. But that's not important. What's important is that Warren Buffet, the man who was upset about having such a low tax bill, (through one of his companies) is suing the IRS to avoid paying taxes.

Let me get this straight.

You are saying a company should pay taxes it does not owe because a person who has ownership in the company feels the tax laws are not adequate? There is a BIG distinction to wanting to pay a fair share of taxes and correcting a tax that was improperly imposed.

Are you saying a business should not correct errors that could influence how many people are on payroll or the price of their stocks? Your whole argument falls apart rather quickly, it all hinges on Mr. Buffet "avoiding taxes" which is clearly not the case as the company corrected a mistake that the IRS improperly assessed a tax. If anything Mr. Buffet and NetJets are practicing good business as they have corrected an error made by the IRS that was detrimental to their company, saving shareholders and employees money and jobs. NetJets and Mr. Buffet are clearly not avoiding taxes, just making sure they are taxed properly. The burden of proof for your argument is lacking, one may say it is pulled out of this air or randomly picked using darts and a dartboard.

Many posters have pointed out your shortcomings in this thread as well as other threads. Your responses or lack thereof are telling. I put in red where I addressed your main point as I am sure you will ignore it.

Biccat I tangled with you before but found your rhetoric distasteful as you strawman or ignore opposing points and often use sophistry as the base of your arguments. Let me make it more clear: Biccat you argue often with falsehoods being the base of your arguments. If your points cannot stand on their own merit why argue a message backed with incorrect statements (statements you willfully use knowing they are false no less)? I am unsure of what you hope to gain by this, an army of misinformed followers? Just baiting and trolling?

This guy wins...

J-Roc77 wrote:Your whole argument falls apart rather quickly, it all hinges on Mr. Buffet "avoiding taxes" which is clearly not the case as the company corrected a mistake that the IRS improperly assessed a tax.

Actually, no. The argument is that Mr. Buffet complained about not paying enough in taxes. When offered the opportunity to pay more taxes, he sued to prevent paying.

Either (a) he doesn't actually think he should pay more taxes; or (b) he only wants to pay more taxes when he is forced to pay more in taxes.

(A) is dishonest and (B) is an argument for fascism. I'm going to assume the best.

biccat wrote:
Actually, no. The argument is that Mr. Buffet complained about not paying enough in taxes. When offered the opportunity to pay more taxes, he sued to prevent paying.

Either (a) he doesn't actually think he should pay more taxes; or (b) he only wants to pay more taxes when he is forced to pay more in taxes.

(A) is dishonest and (B) is an argument for fascism. I'm going to assume the best.

(B) is an argument for fascism in exactly the same sense that "We should have a government!" is an argument for fascism.

You're equivocating, and doing a poor job of it at that.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
If Mr. Buffet is concerned about not paying enough in taxes, it's not inappropriate to ask why he's trying to avoid taxes on companies he owns (he is the majority shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway, IIRC). Any taxes that a company he owns does not pay translates into higher income for him.

Buffet owns something like 34% of Berkshire's voting power, so he isn't the majority shareholder.

You don't need over 50% to be the controlling shareholder or even a de facto 'majority' shareholder if a significant percentage of stock is tied up in the hands of minor shareholders. Also with Buffets reputation he likely has a 'fan club'. A fan club is the legalised version of insider trading. The man with the rep gives away his own intentions to a selected group of individuals who then decide whether or not to mimic his investments on a smaller scale. For many reasons only the very biggest names get a fan club, Warren Buffet certainly qualifies.
In order to stay in the lop the 'fan club' agrees not to outdo the person they are following, as gentleman's agreements are of limited value in high stakes business it implies that the fan club couldnt outinvest Buffet even if they tried.
All in all this means that there will be a percentage of shares owned by fan club members who buy when Buffet buys, sell when he sells and trust him to make everyone in the club money off his back. What this means for Buffet is a silent partnership that could tip the controlling interest over the 50% line.

While he has no outright majority a third share, rounded up, is a lot of clout. I went to the website for Berkshire Hathaway and Buffet was frequently quoted on it. It may well be that someone else has 34%+ of the shares, but I am doubting it frankly. In any circumstance 34% is a major shareholder who will be consulted in all major undertakings, in all likelihood Buffets share is the controlling interest, though I could be wrong here.

While we are talking:

dogma wrote:
You're equivocating, and doing a poor job of it at that.

Now dogma I agree with your opinion here, but still have concern over your methodologies. Please don't taunt Biccat, disagreeing with you is not a very nice experience sometimes.

biccat wrote:

J-Roc77 wrote:Your whole argument falls apart rather quickly, it all hinges on Mr. Buffet "avoiding taxes" which is clearly not the case as the company corrected a mistake that the IRS improperly assessed a tax.

Actually, no. The argument is that Mr. Buffet complained about not paying enough in taxes. When offered the opportunity to pay more taxes, he sued to prevent paying.

Either (a) he doesn't actually think he should pay more taxes; or (b) he only wants to pay more taxes when he is forced to pay more in taxes.

(A) is dishonest and (B) is an argument for fascism. I'm going to assume the best.

Here you go with a false dilemma now. I am sure you knew that when you posted though. Only 2 choices? Why not 3 or more, how about option (C) "the company (and Buffet) feel that citizens and companies only should pay taxes legitimately owed and not accidental or falsely imposed ones as an accident like that will not fix tax reform issues." If "(A) is dishonest and (B) is an argument for fascism", then (C) is an argument for proper and correct taxation for all Americans. You also are stating he had a chance to pay more taxes, a false tax is as good as a real one for this argument huh?. You are saying the legality of taxation has no bearing on the events that happened, and whether a company legally owed money or not is not an issue? Your argument is still rickety being built on falsely imposed taxation = to legitimate taxation. Why can't Mr. Buffet and a company he has ownership in only want to pay legal taxes, and not falsely imposed ones as you think they should (I mean why besides it is detrimental to your argument).

The way you word your argument is that he and only he wants to pay more taxes which is a falsehood, Buffet is calling for taxes on the super rich and multinational companies, including himself. Bit of a straw man you are trying to build there. Of course, you knew that as well when you posted.

Orlanth wrote:
You don't need over 50% to be the controlling shareholder or even a de facto 'majority' shareholder if a significant percentage of stock is tied up in the hands of minor shareholders.

Sure, but you need more than 50% of the stock to be a majority shareholder, which is a critical distinction if we're considering hard power in the economic sphere.

Orlanth wrote:
In order to stay in the lop the 'fan club' agrees not to outdo the person they are following, as gentleman's agreements are of limited value in high stakes business it implies that the fan club couldnt outinvest Buffet even if they tried.

That seems to imply that the "fan club" doesn't exist at all.

Orlanth wrote:
What this means for Buffet is a silent partnership that could tip the controlling interest over the 50% line.

Sure, but again, hard power v. soft power and all the other things that have already been covered in this thread.

Orlanth wrote:
In any circumstance 34% is a major shareholder who will be consulted in all major undertakings, in all likelihood Buffets share is the controlling interest, though I could be wrong here.

Probably, though that's quite distinct from possessing absolute authority as a majority shareholder, or a person with regard to their own faculties, would.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

J-Roc77 wrote:Bit of a straw man you are trying to build there.

Good to se I'm not the only one who noticed.

J-Roc77 wrote:Here you go with a false dilemma now. I am sure you knew that when you posted though. Only 2 choices? Why not 3 or more, how about option (C) "the company (and Buffet) feel that citizens and companies only should pay taxes legitimately owed and not accidental or falsely imposed ones as an accident like that will not fix tax reform issues."

No, what Mr. Buffett (apologies for the misspellings above), is saying is that the wealthy should not be spared from "shared sacrifice." Specifically that the wealthy get tax breaks not available to regular individuals.

However, the glaring fault in Mr. Buffett's reasoning is that there is no maximum level of taxation[/url] under the current law. If Mr. Buffett feels that he should be paying more in taxes, then [i]he can pay more in taxes.

If you're interested, I can provide the link to donate money to the US government. You can even direct your donation to paying down the debt instead of putting it towards the general fund (not that it really matters).

What Mr. Buffett is arguing (and what you're arguing with your "legitimately owed" language) is that Mr. Buffett should only pay the minimum amount of taxes necessary to avoid going to prison/having his wages garnished/being sued by the IRS/etc. This argument is incorrect because it assumes that the only taxes that are legitimate are those that one is required to pay. If this is the case, then it is not illegitimate for the wealthy to enjoy their current level of taxation, and Mr. Buffett is asking for an illegitimate level of taxation on his friends. Or, basically, a punitive tax.

On the issue, Mr. Buffett (through his proxy) is disputing the amount of taxes he should be required to pay. But in his op-ed (see link above), he makes it clear that he (and his billionaire friends) should share the sacrifice by paying more in taxes. But when afforded the opportunity to pay more in taxes (even if the tax assessment is illegitimate), he balks. Remember when he came out against the "corporate jet tax"?

So, like I said above, Mr. Buffett likes the idea of "shared sacrifice" from billionaires, but he doesn't like the idea of actually having to share in the sacrifice.

J-Roc77 wrote:The way you word your argument is that he and only he wants to pay more taxes which is a falsehood, Buffet is calling for taxes on the super rich and multinational companies, including himself. Bit of a straw man you are trying to build there. Of course, you knew that as well when you posted.

This is irrelevant. Mr. Buffett's complaint is that his tax rate is too low. When he complains that his tax rate is too low, it is incumbent upon him to increase his tax contribution. By failing to do so, and particularly by refusing to pay a tax assessment (even when illegitimate), he is being hypocritical.

ShumaGorath wrote:you can't actually address dogmas points

I could, but honestly, I'm tired of his trolling, personal insults, and attempts to deflect every discussion on this forum.

biccat wrote:
However, the glaring fault in Mr. Buffett's reasoning is that there is no maximum level of taxation[/url] under the current law. If Mr. Buffett feels that he should be paying more in taxes, then [i]he can pay more in taxes.

Again, there is a distinction between wanting reformed tax policy, and wanting to pay more taxes.

biccat wrote:
What Mr. Buffett is arguing (and what you're arguing with your "legitimately owed" language) is that Mr. Buffett should only pay the minimum amount of taxes necessary to avoid going to prison/having his wages garnished/being sued by the IRS/etc. This argument is incorrect because it assumes that the only taxes that are legitimate are those that one is required to pay. If this is the case, then it is not illegitimate for the wealthy to enjoy their current level of taxation, and Mr. Buffett is asking for an illegitimate level of taxation on his friends. Or, basically, a punitive tax.

That makes absolutely no sense.

biccat wrote:
Remember when he came out against the "corporate jet tax"?

Yeah, he called it political theatre, because ti was.

biccat wrote:
This is irrelevant. Mr. Buffett's complaint is that his tax rate is too low. When he complains that his tax rate is too low, it is incumbent upon him to increase his tax contribution.

No, not at all, and the reason why is evident in your terminology. If I claim my tax rate X is too low, then I am not claiming that I do not pay enough in taxes, I am claiming that I am not taxed enough.

The distinction is not only bald-faced, but critical.