2011. 10. 23. 03:01 일상 생활
미국판 - 노블리스 오블리제
New York Times의 'The Opinion Page'에 기고되어서 2011년 8월 14일자에 실린 Warren Buffett의 글이다.
미국에 와서 느낀 점중에 어떻게 이런 나라가 세계 최강의 나라라고 할 수 있는가? 라는 나의 의문에 처음 답을 준 글이기도 하다.
사회개혁주의자의 말이 아닌, 세계 최고의 부호중의 한 명인 Warren Buffett의 의견이기에 더욱 파장이 크고, 의견의 진실성이 느껴졌다. 이런 사람들이 미국의 경쟁력을 이루어 내는 것이라 생각이 든다. 만약 다른 미국내 부호들이 그의 의견에 동조하면, 미국은 'How the west was lost'를 쓴 Dambisa Moyo의 미래 시나리오중 미국의 혁신을 통한 재도약에 힘이 실리고 미국은 20세기에 이어 21세기에 또다른 중흥의 시기를 맞이할 수 있을 거라 생각이 든다.
자신의 이기적인 욕심을 버리고, 미국을 진정 사랑하고, 그 사랑을 실천하려는, 또한 모범을 보이려는 사회 정의 실천의 의지를 전하고, 한국에서도 이런 진정한 마음을 가지고 실천하려는 부자의 모습을 보았으면 하는 마음으로 Warren Buffett의 글을 옮깁니다.
Stop coddling the Super-Rich
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 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 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 ad 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 problem. 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 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-percent-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.
- New York Times 'The Opinion Pages' / http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
이런 부자를 가지고 있는 미국이 부러웠고, 자식에게 부를 상속하기위해 법의 맹점을 이용하거나, 법을 어기고도, 당당히 행세하며 살아가는 한국에서는 그런 role model로부터 배울 수 있는 점은 할 수 있는 한 최대로 이익을 챙기고, 문제가 생기면 그건 나중에 그때가서 잘 무마되도록하는 점이다.
이런 것들을 보고 자란 후손들에게서 정의롭고 정직한 삶을 사는 것을 바라는 것은 콩을 심어놓고 팥이 열리길 바라는 바와 무엇이 다른가?
일제 강점시기- 군정 시기와 군사 독재시기에 이미 불의 (친일파, 군사독재 정권)가 득세하고 활개를 치는 것을 보고 자란 세대가 이제 은퇴하거나 은퇴를 앞둔 세대가 되었다. 그 세대가 자식을 양육하면서 무엇을 가르켰을까? 가르키지는 않았더라도 그 자녀 세대가 무엇을 배웠을까하는 것은 자명하다.
올바른 사회 이념이 성립하지 않으면, 그 사회는 번영을 약속할 수 없다. 안타까운 마음과 한편으로 부러운 마음으로 이 글을 옮긴다.
훌.륭.한. 사람이다. 역시 큰 그릇의 인물이다.
Lucas Jackson/Reuters
New York Times의 'The Opinion Page'에 기고되어서 2011년 8월 14일자에 실린 Warren Buffett의 글이다.
미국에 와서 느낀 점중에 어떻게 이런 나라가 세계 최강의 나라라고 할 수 있는가? 라는 나의 의문에 처음 답을 준 글이기도 하다.
사회개혁주의자의 말이 아닌, 세계 최고의 부호중의 한 명인 Warren Buffett의 의견이기에 더욱 파장이 크고, 의견의 진실성이 느껴졌다. 이런 사람들이 미국의 경쟁력을 이루어 내는 것이라 생각이 든다. 만약 다른 미국내 부호들이 그의 의견에 동조하면, 미국은 'How the west was lost'를 쓴 Dambisa Moyo의 미래 시나리오중 미국의 혁신을 통한 재도약에 힘이 실리고 미국은 20세기에 이어 21세기에 또다른 중흥의 시기를 맞이할 수 있을 거라 생각이 든다.
자신의 이기적인 욕심을 버리고, 미국을 진정 사랑하고, 그 사랑을 실천하려는, 또한 모범을 보이려는 사회 정의 실천의 의지를 전하고, 한국에서도 이런 진정한 마음을 가지고 실천하려는 부자의 모습을 보았으면 하는 마음으로 Warren Buffett의 글을 옮깁니다.
Stop coddling the Super-Rich
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 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 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 ad 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 problem. 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 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-percent-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.
- New York Times 'The Opinion Pages' / http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
이런 부자를 가지고 있는 미국이 부러웠고, 자식에게 부를 상속하기위해 법의 맹점을 이용하거나, 법을 어기고도, 당당히 행세하며 살아가는 한국에서는 그런 role model로부터 배울 수 있는 점은 할 수 있는 한 최대로 이익을 챙기고, 문제가 생기면 그건 나중에 그때가서 잘 무마되도록하는 점이다.
이런 것들을 보고 자란 후손들에게서 정의롭고 정직한 삶을 사는 것을 바라는 것은 콩을 심어놓고 팥이 열리길 바라는 바와 무엇이 다른가?
일제 강점시기- 군정 시기와 군사 독재시기에 이미 불의 (친일파, 군사독재 정권)가 득세하고 활개를 치는 것을 보고 자란 세대가 이제 은퇴하거나 은퇴를 앞둔 세대가 되었다. 그 세대가 자식을 양육하면서 무엇을 가르켰을까? 가르키지는 않았더라도 그 자녀 세대가 무엇을 배웠을까하는 것은 자명하다.
올바른 사회 이념이 성립하지 않으면, 그 사회는 번영을 약속할 수 없다. 안타까운 마음과 한편으로 부러운 마음으로 이 글을 옮긴다.
훌.륭.한. 사람이다. 역시 큰 그릇의 인물이다.
