Higher income tax on people making $1 million or more.  President Obama is proposing $1.5 trillion in new taxes aimed primarily at the wealthy.  House Speaker John Boehner, has said no such legislation will pass the House.

Is this fair?  Is this appropriate?  Will there be a class war?

 The answers are YES, YES and YES!

Those opposing the tax cuts say that this is the wrong time to increase taxes because those wealthy people are the job creators.  If that is accurate then where are the jobs created by the Bush tax cuts?  Look in India, China, and elsewhere.  Businesses did create jobs.  They just didn’t to it in the United States.

Let’s be honest.  Businessmen did do the right thing for their companies.  They kept their cost of goods as low as possible.  That’s the way you increase the profits.

From now on the wealthy should at least pay the same tax rates as the rest of us!  The Republicans will call it class warfare.  I call it equal sharing of the burdens of a successful society.

Why watching Sunday morning talk shows is mostly a waste of time!

The Sunday morning political TV talk shows are really just an opportunity for the partisans to spew their positions not matter how outrageous they are.  Whether Democrats or Republicans they all just repeat the same lines over and over.  It’s like they don’t think we notice the repetitiveness of their spiels.

This week I thought I would try to catch them at the downright lies and truly ridiculous statements.

Jim DeMint, Republican Senator from South Carolina, appearing on “This Week” said Social Security is bankrupt.  In 2010 for the first time in its history the system paid out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes as reported in the New York Times.  This is not bankruptcy. The system will run out of sufficient funds in 2037 if things keep going as they are now.  Alan Greenspan, the former head of the Federal Reserve, recalled in an interview that the sour economy of the late 1970s had taken the program close to insolvency when the commission he led set to work in 1982.  So another commission is needed now not fear mongering.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on the “Fox & friends” television program, said that if she were in the White House rather than Barack Obama, then things might be different today in the country.  No kidding! What a remarkable statement.  No two presidents have conducted things exactly the same way.  He could also have said things might be different today if John McCain had been elected president.  The Associated Press wasted time and posted a story on this non-news item.

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman contended on “State of the Union” that there have not been any major attacks since 9-11.  Well none have been successful.  Two most outstanding incidents did no harm but no thanks to our law enforcement officials.  He seems to have forgotten the Christmas Day Bomber who only failed because the detonator failed to function in a plane landing in Detroit.  There was also the Times Square Bomber whose terrorist attack was foiled when two street vendors discovered the car bomb and alerted NYPD.

Jim Hoffa, head of the Teamsters union (not Jimmy any more), was also on “State of the Union” contending that American companies are not patriotic.  He specifically pointed out Apple Computer as one of the least patriotic because they do have their products made elsewhere.

Michele Bachmann, appearing on “Face the Nation” said gasoline had risen from $1.79 to about $3.90 a gallon since Barack Obama had become president.  She is correct.  She then went on to criticize the president for not taking advantage of the natural gas and oil resources in North America.  She would be wrong on that statement.  The United States appears to be about to approve the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast. That is a $7 billion project.

Chris Wallace wasted most of his entire program interviewing Dick Cheney.  It was basically an infomercial for Cheney’s new book.

So why do I watch these programs?  I learn what to expect in upcoming campaigns.  Those campaigns are both about re-election and critical legislation.

The New York Times
The Opinion Pages

Op-Ed Contributor

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

By WARREN E. BUFFET

Published: August 14, 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.

The group of Congressmen that are supposed to reach a debt reduction plan by November 23, 2011 is generally being called “The Gang of 12”. The problem is they have no motivation to accomplish the assigned task. 

For those Americans who don’t understand the debt deal it’s government by hostage taking. Congress formed a gang of 12 who are supposed to agree on a way to cut the deficit. If the gang fails or Congress doesn’t pass what they recommend, then the trigger is pulled and each hostage is shot.

The hostage for the Democrats is the elderly. The hostage for the Republicans is the military. If a deal fails, then wounded solders and the elderly are out on the street. Is this any way to run a country? Is this what America has come to?

I think Congress should have used themselves as a hostage. Why didn’t they pass a bill where if Congress doesn’t cut the deficit then they lose their pay? Better yet they should put their lifetime pension on the table. Here in California if the legislature doesn’t pass a budget on time, then they don’t get paid. They should have put their money on the table – not ours.