They say the "Rich" don't pay enough in taxes.   What's "enough"?

The top 5% of wage earners, who make about $300,000/year, pay about 1/3 of all income taxes.

The bottom 1/3 of wage earners pay $0 or even get a refund (earned income tax credit).  My "tax the rich" state gives out about $20 million a year in "tax refunds" to people who pay zero.

The system is "progressive" enough...

But the truth is, the Lib's entire "tax the rich" mantra is a LIE.  They don't really care about this.  They know damned well who the payers and who the freeloaders are in this society; they're simply engaged in class-envy propaganda for the Left.

The first GOP candidate to effective call them on this and nuke their lame argument will get my vote.

    In the course of the interview, Buffett mentioned that his effective tax rate last year was 17.7%, whereas an informal survey he conducted of his office workers showed they paid an average of 32.9%.

   Forgotten in this issue of tax and after tax income is the fact that rich people have business expenses to cover before they have spendable income.  If Mr. Buffet subtracted his cost of doing business (i.e. his secretaries, offices, etc.) along with his taxes I bet the disparity between his real income and his secretaries income would be in closer proportion. 

With all the special deductions and rates for particular behaviors that are in the tax code, the "rich" are more likely to hire someone to give them tax advice or to manage their finances so as to pay the least amount of taxes possible. The rest of the earners in the country can't afford that so they get screwed.

The tax systen in this country is in direct violation of the 14th amandment (equal protection) because it fundementaly treats people differently based on their income. One of the easiest and best ways to fix the system is to trash the current IRS code and institute a flat tax. Everyone would pay the same percentage of their income so no one is treated any differently. Another fix that meets the 14th amendment test is the elimination of the income tax and instead a national sales tax in it's place.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back!  Fred08.com

There was one thing that Buffett refused to answer... he was asked pretty directly if -he- wanted to pay more taxes.

 Also, if I recall correctly did not he say he would donate a million to a charity of one's choice if one's secretary pays lower tax rate than whoever challenges him?

 I bet among all the newsbusters readers and those that we know we can find a few thousand people whose secretaries pay less in percentage? That would only cost a few billion to Mr Buffett and MRC can have a few million more :)

If there's an inequity, how do we resolve the problem? But wait, see what this question assumes. It assumes that inequity is a problem. Brokaw's question to the receptionist implies that she should see an inequity in rate as a problem.

If you see taxes merely as a moral responsibility, then an inequity in rate might be wrong. But taxes are fundamentally a finance system; they're a strategic method of paying for government services. The strategy of our finance system depends on the idea that investment creates new businesses and a broader tax base, which lessens the burden on everyone. We lower taxes to stimulate investment. Obviously, the wealthy are more likely to invest, so the strategy favors lower tax rates on them than the middle class. The strategy does indeed favor the wealthy, but the payoff is that the middle class winds up paying less than they would have.

• However, that's only true if the lower taxes produces a broader tax base, broad enough to offset the funds we aren't collecting equally from the rich.
• If Buffet is saying that we aren't getting back enough on investment to make up for the decreased tax rate, then he has a legitimate point.

That doesn't excuse Brokaw, however. I doubt Brokaw is making that point, because if he did, he wouldn't have asked that question of the receptionist. That just appeals to the class-envy of the receptionist. Brokaw simply reflects the liberal dogma that any inequity is immoral, even if the lower classes do better by it.

Did Brokaw mention at any point that Buffett  is a well known supporter of the Democratic Party?  Is support for higher taxes considered "break[ing] some rules" by this organization?

 Buffett feels that it is the obligation of certain "qualified" members of society to plan the lives of their less "gifted" fellow citizens.  There are plenty of rich people who feel this way. 

Buffett and his business associate Charles Munger have also long been supporters of population control(i.e. abortion), including helping to fund clinical trials for RU-486.  He is making sure society does not have to deal with "inconvenient", unplanned children.

This is Brokaw spoon-feeding the plebs information that leads only to Progressive conclusions.  Also, if Buffett is so worried about the financial plight of his secretary, what is stopping him from throwing some extra dough her way?

If Buffett's so worried about the "inequality" of it all, why does he adjust his taxable income? There's nothing preventing him from paying the full 35% on his 46MM. Screw this rich socialist - he proves the point that the leftwing is the refuge for the very poor and the very rich.

 BTW, a single taxapayer (secretary perhaps ?) making 30K per year pays under 14% in FIT.

I simply do not believe Warren Buffet's claims about the tax rate of his office workers.  Some of his workers might be categorized as being in the 28% (or more) tax bracket, but their effective (or even marginal) tax rate should typically be half that rate.  There are online calculators for determining what your marginal tax rate will be depending on your income.  If his receptionist is truly paying 30%, then she is making around $200,000 per year.  Why so much? 

A much better response (than mine) to this claim can be found at:  http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2813