The 400 wealthiest people in America were asked if they'd be willing to pay more taxes. How many said they would pay more taxes? 8 of them. That's right: 2%
By Peter Finocchiaro, Salon
Posted on October 10, 2011
When
Warren Buffett called on the U.S. government in August to
“stop coddling the super-rich,” he
pointed out that he pays less of of his income in taxes than his
secretary does. He said the rich should pay higher taxes for the sake of
“shared sacrifice,” and suggested that most of his wealthy friends
“wouldn’t mind being told to pay more.”
To test that notion,
Salon launched the
Patriotic Billionaire Challenge. We put the question to every member of the
“Forbes 400″ list, all of them with a net worth of at least $1 billion: “Are you, like Warren Buffet, willing to pay higher taxes?”
The results are in. Of 400 billionaires, only eight (including
Buffet) say they are willing to pay more. Three others indicated
opposition; one said maybe.
But most declined to comment at all.
Oprah Winfrey, who endorsed
Obama in 2008, did not respond. Nor did liberal media mogul
Ted Turner.
Prominent Democratic Party donors from Hollywood such as
Steven
Spielberg, David Geffen and
Barry Diller did not express a view.
Philanthropists
Bill Gates and
Michael Bloomberg — whom we queried
repeatedly — refused to comment on Buffett’s argument, even as it became
a central part of Washington’s political conversation.
On Sept. 19, President Obama
rolled out his
jobs plan, calling for individuals making more than $250,000 to pay
higher taxes for the sake of paying down the deficit and funding the
president’s jobs plan. As the president has pitched the plan to the
country, he has repeatedly invoked the name of the Omaha Oracle as a
selling point — dubbing his proposal as
“The Buffett Rule.” Senate Democrats proposed an
alternative solution: A 5% surtax on any income a person earns beyond $1 million a year — including capital gains. The president
threw his support behind the measure.
Most of those who did respond to
Salon’s question seemed to have strong opinions. Liberal philanthropist,
George Soros (Net worth: $22B), expressed approval.
Warren Buffett is living up to his reputation as an astute investor.
The rich hurt their own long term interests by their opposition to
paying more taxes.
James Simsons, chairman of
Renaissance Technologies ($10.6B), and
Herbert Simon, co-founder of the
Simon Property Group ($1.6B), both
responded with a simple “Yes.”
John Arnold, manager of the Centaurus Advisors hedge fund ($3.5B),
had one condition: “I support incrementally raising tax rates on the
wealthiest if part of a comprehensive package to address the federal
deficit. ”
Leon Cooperman, manager of the
Omega Advisors hedge fund ($1.8B),
offered his own plan, saying he supports “a 10-percent income tax
surcharge for three years on those earning more than $500,000 per year.”
He said that he believes in the progressive income tax and that
he’s “very fond of Warren.” But also expressed wariness about President
Obama’s plan, saying he “wants to give away money to the public.”
Others supported Buffet’s sentiment with some qualifications.
Todd
Wagner, co-owner and CEO of
2929 Entertainment ($1.2B), said, “I’m a
lucky guy. I have no issue paying more.” But he added that the revenue
raised would only amount to “maybe 8 to 12 percent of what’s needed,
based on what everyone thinks we need to get the debt under control.”
Where’s the rest come from? Military cuts? Raising the age on social
security or medicare? I don’t have that answer. But I know that that’s
the difficult part of it.
The problem is nobody trusts how the government spends it. We all
feel a little concerned that it’s just dropping into a black hole. The
wealthiest absolutely should pay more, but I also want to feel that it’s
going to something that matters.
Wagner’s business partner,
Mark Cuban,
owner of the
Dallas Mavericks basketball team and chairman of
HDNet ($2.3B), said, “I have absolutely no problem paying more taxes.
None.”
But he went on:
What I have a problem with is how the money is spent. If the
incremental money could be directed to defined and deserved recipients.
I would be thrilled to write the check.
The problem I have is not on the revenue side, its on the expenditure
side. Too much money is wasted on bureaucracy, adminis-trivia,
pensions and over-expansive federal employment.
So I’m a resounding yes on more taxes, but an attachment to the
funding to be directly spent on approved programs. If a program doesn’t
deliver 95 percent or better to its intended recipients, it should be
put on hold until it does.
Stanley Hubbard, founder,
Hubbard Broadcasting ($1.9B), said maybe:
“There is more to it than a simple yes or no. It depends upon a lot of
things.”
John Catsimatidis, CEO of the
Gristedes supermarket chain ($2B), offered a different version of “shared sacrifice.”
All Americans should feel the pain equally; not be prejudiced only
against a certain group. If that is allowed, it opens doors to other
prejudices to other groups.
Bernie Marcus, co-founder of
Home Depot (Net worth: $1.8B), didn’t
say “no,” but expressed worry that Buffett and Obama are “penalizing
success.”
I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes. What I do have a
problem with is the idea that by raising taxes on a select few, we can
get our economy growing again and close our national debt. That is
false. Getting people back to work with good-paying, sustainable jobs is
the only thing that will get our nation out of this recession because
it will bring in more tax dollars. That’s what our government should be
focused on rather than penalizing success.
He later clarified his position, saying:
I’m not against anybody paying additional taxes as long as there is a
comprehensive tax program which involves spending cuts. We have to cut
spending, which is the biggest evil we have in this government.
And
Charles Koch, the CEO of
Koch Industries and funder of conservative causes ($25B), categorically rejected the idea.
Much of what the government spends money on does more harm than good;
this is particularly true over the past several years with the massive
uncontrolled increase in government spending. I believe my business and
non-profit investments are much more beneficial to societal well-being
than sending more money to Washington.
What about all the others who ducked the question entirely? Peruse the
Forbes list, and if you run into any of them, be sure to ask them yourself. We’ll be curious to learn what they say.
No comments:
Post a Comment