|
【序言】爱股网投资文摘收录50多名国内知名价值投资博客的文章，从而为广大用户提供最新、最有价值的投资文摘。在这里你可以领略投资高手们的投资理念，关注他们的投资组合，了解他们的选股思路以及他们对个股和行业的看法。
—————————————————————————————————————————————2011-08-17 14:39:11 新浪博客 刘建位__学习巴菲特
巴菲特呼吁对国会偏袒的亿万富翁们增税
2011年08月15日22:03腾讯财经我要评论(2)
字号：T|T
腾讯财经讯 北京时间8月15日晚间消息，传奇投资人沃伦巴菲特周一呼吁美国国会为全美最富裕的一批亿万富翁增税，以帮助削减美国预算赤字的规模，并称这种方法不会抑制投资或者就业机会的增长。
作为伯克希尔哈撒韦公司的主席兼首席执行官，沃伦巴菲特是在周一出版的纽约时报上的一篇评论文章中提出以上建议的，他指出，“我的朋友们和我已经被对亿万富翁们异常友好的国会‘娇宠’太长时间了，现在是我们的政府认真考虑共同奉献的时候了。”
巴菲特认为，对那些“超级豪富”提高税赋将是对奥巴马总统结束针对富人的税务优惠政策呼吁的增强措施；巴菲特还在文章中指出，他个人去年的联邦税单，或者说个人收入税，以及以他的名义缴纳的薪酬税加起来是6938744美元，“这看起来似乎是一大笔钱，但实际只是我应纳税收入的17.4%而已，几乎是与我共同工作的其他20个人中最低的税率。他们实际承担的税率从33%到41%不等，平均达到了36%。”
巴
菲特表示，国会刚刚组建的那个12人超级预算委员会应该立即着手设定规则，为那些每年应纳税收入在100万美元以上的家庭提高税率，而且收入的计算应该包
括股息和资本利得；而对8274名年入在1000万美元以上的豪富，还应该征收某种额外的税赋，“当那些贫穷或者中产的美国人在阿富汗为我们战斗着，当大
多数美国人都在为生活拼搏时，我们这些豪富却还在继续享受这种异乎寻常的税务优惠。”巴菲特引用美国国税局数据指出，过去二十年来，美国最富裕的这些人，
实际税率是在一直下降中的。
在谈到高税赋可能抑制雇佣和投资时，巴菲特认为这种说法是
完全错误的，他表示，“我已经和许多投资者共同合作60年，而且会在这一行干更长时间——即使是在1976年到1977年资本利得税高达39.9%时，都
没有导致敏感的投资有任何退缩。人们投资是为了挣钱，潜在的税负从来没有吓到过他们。对那些认为增税会伤害就业增长的人，我希望强调的是，1980年到
2000年，全美增加了4000个就业机会；而在那之后发生了什么：税率降低了，但是就业增长下降得更快。” （孔军）
Op-Ed Contributor
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
Kelly Blair
Related
Related in Opinion
Editorial: The Truth About Taxes (August 7, 2011)
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did
the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to
learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left
untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and
while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich
continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are
investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are
allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby
getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index
futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at
15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in
Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were
spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have
friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well
as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That
sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent
of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than
was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax
burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36
percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends
do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn
money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most
likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government
revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from
personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income
taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay
practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for
the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25
percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll
taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far
higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack.
According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit
and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital
gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors
for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital
gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible
investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People
invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them
off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I
would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between
1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates
and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the
400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400
had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal
taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of
the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4
million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5
percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but
you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was
inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008
reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital
gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to
invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are
very decent people. They love America and appreciate the
opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the
Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to
philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as
well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly
suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of
rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to
devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5
trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than
that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress
to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is
immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from
morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own
reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that
even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here.
The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. 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. This cut helps the poor and the middle class,
who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883
such households in 2009 — 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 — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional
increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a
billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get
serious about shared sacrifice.
Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of
Berkshire Hathaway.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print
on August 15, 2011, on page A21 of the New York edition with the
headline: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
【备注】该文章来源于http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_53c8e9ab0102ds5l.html,爱股网不对其内容负责。请各位运用独立思考的能力，去其糟粕、取其精华。 |
发表于 2011-10-15 23:03:39
