He's given away something like $27 Billion so far. Getting upset because he has only paid tax on the money he has physically received and not on his net wealth seems a little disingenuous.
For example, in the article the author laments that Buffett's wealth went up by $X, but he only paid $Y in taxes, and that's not fair to middle class people. But middle class people benefit in exactly the same way - if you pay $250k for a house and a year later because of a housing boom it is now worth $350k, you don't pay taxes on that $100,000 you "made".
If the whole world decides a random rock in your back yard is worth $10M, you shouldn't need to give the government $3M while the rock just sits there.
> So I regret to inform you that Mr. Buffett is actually the most dangerous kind of billionaire we have. The worst billionaires are the Good Billionaires. The sort who make it seem like the problem is the distortion of the system when, in fact, the problem is the system.
It's also obvious by what they don't say. The author very breezily mentions that Buffett has donated some money, but no amounts or anything.
side note: India Times, please get rid of the silly copy and paste override. It is just plain obnoxious
Why not?
General taxation is done on two principles -- ability to pay and the principle of fairness. Those who have more pay more.
If you have a rock worth $10M in your back yard you can certainly pay. You'd have to get a loan or sell the rock to do so, but you have more ability to pay than anybody who isn't a millionaire.
And by not selling for $10M, you're demonstrating that the rock is worth more than $10M to you. So the government is doing you a favor by only taxing on the $10M rather than on the actual value to yourself.
Think about this - I have un unrealized appreciation in an asset, and I am a normal person, the only way I'd be able to pay the taxes on my $10m rock would be by selling the rock. Wealth taxes can force a sale to cover the taxes. Practically, this is not something we want. In fact, most cities have laws designed to help people NOT be forced to sell. If every long time owner of an apartment in Oakland had to pay taxes on their real-estate appreciation, the majority would be forced to sell. Net: Wealth taxes are strongly regressive, and pro gentrification.
Actually, in most states in the USA, you do. When your home's value increases, your property tax in nominal dollars increase.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/homeowners-are-facing-the-...
> In order to come up with your tax bill, your tax office multiplies the tax rate by the assessed value. So, if your property is assessed at $300,000 and your local government sets your tax rate at 2.5%, your annual tax bill will be $7,500.
Just to note, you don't pay taxes on the speculative "profit", but you do pay property tax as some percentage of it's "value" upon reassessment by a blackbox.
>>If the whole world decides a random rock in your back yard is worth $10M, you shouldn't need to give the government $3M while the rock just sits there.
I totally agree. Unfortunately, that's exactly what governments do with cars and boats. No one should be forced to pay a tithe for owning property or risk being thrown in jail for refusing.