Warren Buffet: I'll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges-- me that the average [tax rate] for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.

Leona Helmsley: "Only little people pay taxes."

It is a fact that the republicans have shifted more of the tax burden onto the middle-class.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

Considering it is the wealthy who own most of the property and material wealth in this country, and who are benefitting from the war, interest rates, and energy prices, they should start paying their fair share. I know I will be inundated with all kinds of posts of how the rich pay taxes through the nose. I think that is a myth. I have known enough business people and fairly well off people who boasted about how poor they are and then give me a wink I have no doubt that with the rules in place, the depreciations, allowances, write-offs, as well as other perks that many, many companies and CEOS do very well even though on paper they are barely squeeking by. You will not convince me that the wealthy are paying their fair share. As far as I am concerned you are all crying crocodile tears and the more you protest, probably the more you are making out like bandits in avoiding paying your fair share.

You will not convince me that the wealthy are paying their fair share.

The question is, what is their fair share? Who defines "fair"? For that matter, who defines "wealthy"?

P.S. I'm not wealthy, but I would like to be someday. I would just rather earn it on my own than have it reallocated to me by the government based on some crooked politicans' demagoguery.

P.P.S. If Buffett feels guilty about having so much money, I'm sure the government won't object to him paying more than he's required to pay.

He's talking about payroll taxes which are capped at around 90k he says in the text/audio. He makes this very clear. You're chart is income tax which doesn't include payroll tax. How conveniently skewed and it's nice that you take it at face value. I've got some Enron stock at a great price. lulz

And this chart is too obnoxious not too include:

Yeah, Hulkster, I heard it all before and I am not convinced. I think if you have enough accountants and statisticians you can prove whatever you want. Here is a popular reference book for just such an occasion:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-D-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194565921&sr=8-2

At least $1.10 American can buy you $1 Canadian...

BS: Better clean your ears there charlatan, Warren is talking INCOME TAXES + PAYROLL (aka FICA or Social Security + Medicare). It's not possible to pay 17.7% in payroll taxes, the rate is 7.65% and it's capped at $97.5. Some, like me, pay it as both employee and employer, but then deduct out the employer side (aka self employment tax penalty), regardless if warren say's he's paying 17.7% he's obviously not talking just payroll tax. Does Buffett even pay himself a salary???

From the official the transcript:

Warren: And my total taxes paid-- payroll taxes plus income tax-- and the payroll tax is an income tax. It's based on income.

Tom: Yeah.

Warren: Mine came to-- 17.7 percent. That-- that was the-- that was line 61 I think-- or, no, line 43-- is the percent of taxable income, plus payroll taxes, 17.7 percent. The average for the office was 32.9 percent. There wasn't anybody in the office from the receptionist on that paid as low a tax rate. And I have no tax planning. I don't have an-- I don't have a-- an accountant. I don't have tax shelters. I just follow what the U.S. Congress tells me to do.

There's no question that the rich pay the lion's share of income taxes in the US. If I remember correctly roughly 35-40% of income earners don't actually pay any income tax. The rich disproportionately pay more in taxes. That's not the question though. The question is whether or not the rich are paying their fair share. I don't know what the percent of total income tax the rich should pay, but we need to get past the rhetoric by the left that the rich are paying nothing while the poor are financing US policy.

The middle class and rich are both paying less in taxes than before the two rounds of tax cuts under Bush. While that has resulted in the middle class paying slightly more as a percent of the US total income tax receipts, the middle class pays a smaller portion of their income in taxes. So if the top 10% paid 92% of the income tax prior to the Bush presidency, the top 10% may pay 90% of the total income tax today.

The argument that says the middle class has a larger tax burden now is absolutely wrong. The middle class, along with the upper class, pays less tax now than they did prior to Bush being in office.

Indeed, it's long past time to move past the tired rhetoric from both sides.

Time to scrap the entire tax system. Taxing income and savings is NOT the answer.

Fair tax, flat tax, sales tax, whatever...just about anything should be better than what we've got now.

How did you know my ears were dirty? That's awesome.

I'll have to re-examine ma chart:

According to this 2002 had 15.3% payroll tax. I don't remember the 130% disparity, you're talking about changing so abruptly. Then if you add unemployment insurance which should be around 1.2%.

We already have a flat tax and have for quite some time.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx

Warren Buffet is putting a mill on the deal, so why would he claim payroll taxes hover around 17%. He's probably one of the worlds most well known/wealthiest bean counters/skimmers. What does he know?

Warren claimed 15% payroll tax for working classes and virtually no payroll taxes who own everything for a living.

When in doubt always look at your personal situation.

Currently I make less than 30K per year. My wife makes less than 20K per year. Jointly we have received a refund the last two years.

Our biggest tax burden has come not from the federal government or the state but from the local government.

"When in doubt always look at your personal situation."

I totally agree with that. That's what Warren Buffett did, and found that he is paying a lower tax rate than his receptionist. That's what he is inviting every Forbes 400 CEO to do.

Also, it's important to recognize how federal tax cuts influence local tax burdens. The federal government gives funding to local governments in a number of ways through different programs. If federal tax cuts require cuts to those programs, the local government will have to recoup that money some other way to offer the same services. They may decide to create a garbage fee. So an income tax cut primarily for the wealthy becomes a local tax hike for everybody. The person making $20,000 pays $66 a year and the person paying $200,000 pays $66 a year. That is the shifting of the tax burden that Buffett is talking about. Of course the wealthy pay more in actual dollars - he is talking about percentage of income.

Of course, this is a hypothetical argument without any evidence. It would be interesting to see if it is true by looking to see if Toledo has lost significant federal funding. I don't know, and I'm not going to research that right now.

No city has lost any money. Despite the tax cuts a few years ago income tax receipts are at an ALL TIME high.

The other side of this argument that no one is talking about is whether or not tax cuts actually bring in more tax revenue in relation to the tax rate at the time. For those who understand calculus it would the the "dRevenue/dRate" on the Laffer Curve, which basically says that as tax rates increase the rate of tax slows and then actually becomes negative. If the government can bring in just as much in tax revenues at a lower tax rate as it can at a higher tax rate then why would we charge the higher tax rate? I'm convinced many liberals would still support the higher tax rate because it levels the playing field by cutting down the rich (as opposed to building up the poor).

GDP is higher than a few years back so yeah tax receipts should be higher too evan at lower rates...no calculus needed for that. Are the receipts higher or lower than they would have been had would not changed rates?

Now as to the widely misused Laffer Curve you need to remember that the top marginal income tax rate at the time Laffer sketched it out on a napkin was up around 92%. Given today's marginal rates, where are we on Laffer's curve?

Greg Mankiw, the distinguished former head of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, has suggested that at today's rates a $1 cut will yield $0.25 in revenue, in other words a $1 cut only costs $0.75 in net lost revenue.

I agree that we are far better off now than we were when Laffer drew his curve, but the curve is the same regardless of what the top marginal rate is. I don't deny that we are on the left side of the curve at this point, but that does not mean we need to move to the right in order to maximize tax revenue because any tax revenue comes out of Americans' pockets. It's also true that any tax increase at all will stifle (to some degree) future economic growth. While that decreased growth may not yield a net loss to the government in tax revenues it will result in a decrease in total wealth compared to a scenario that didn't see a tax increase.

Here's something interesting that I found: http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/Nonpayers%202006/ff-20060330.jpg
This is a graph of the percent of tax returns that pay no income taxes at all by year. You'll notice that under Ronald Reagan (the president that supposedly only cared about the rich) the percentage of people who did not pay income tax at all grew from 18% to 21-22% by the time he left office. In fact, beginning with his tax cuts the percentage of people paying no income tax has increased from 18% to roughly 32% now.