Emeritus Aartsbiskop Tutu het 'n kat in die hoenderhok gegooi toe hy voorgestel het dat wittes 'n weelde-belasting betaal.
Mense, lei jy af uit die kommentaar en briewe, is glad nie lekker daaroor nie.
Hulle wys onder andere op die 600,000 arm wittes wat onder so 'n voorstel sou ly en wat nie die vermoë het om so 'n "weelde" belasting te betaal nie. Maar daar is ook 'n klomp mense wat salarisse verdien, maar wat elke maand sukkel om by te bly met die rekening vir die skool, die pensioen-bydraes, die mediese fonds, die stygende kos-rekening en baie ander uitgawes, wat met onrus - dalk selfs bietjie desperaat - sy woorde aanhoor.
Aartsbiskop Tutu is dikwels die gewete van ons land en die wêreld. Hy is die egte profetiese stem van ons tyd wat vreesloos vir politieke leiers met kwaai, soms woedende uitsprake aanvat - tot ons vreugde en dankbaarheid.
Waarom sê hy dan sulke dinge?
Wat hy oor die belasting wou sê, so onbeholpe soos wat dit ook al gedoen is, is vanoggend vanuit besigheidskringe in Amerika, veel beter en baie genuanseerder deur Warren Buffet geskryf.
Buffet, die seun van 'n Presbiteriaanse predikant is een van die rykste mense op die planeet. Buffet het 'n jaar of wat gelede begin om tydens sy leeftyd 99% van sy rykdom (tans 44 biljoen dollar) weg te gee. (Lees 'n artikel hieroor by http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune).
Buffet gee boonop nie net nie, hy help die mense wat die enorme klompe geld uit sy skenking op opheffingswerk moet spandeer, ook om te beplan hoe om sy rykdom sinvol uit te deel.
As Warren Buffet praat, luister almal wat enigsins iets weet. Hy ken ekonomie. Hy is 'n realistiese, plat op die aarde mense wat sy dinge deeglik doen en deur sy nugterheid gekom het waar hy is. Sy syfers is indrukwekkend en sy feite in plek.
Ek dink sommige van Buffet se ryk vriende sal bitter wees as hulle daardie artikel uit sy pen lees. En die politieke leiers wat hy so kwaai kap, sal sekerlik skaam moet wees oor die manier waarop hulle die egte ryke's bevoordeel ten koste van hul land en gemeenskappe.
Ek dink wat Buffet skryf is eintlik wat Aartsbiskop Tutu wil sê. Daar is baie mense in hierdie land wat genoeg verdien en uit hulle rykdom kan help om die verskriklike gaping tussen arm en ryk kleiner te maak.
Soos daardie mense wat, vertel 'n dominee my, R13000 (dertien duisend rand) in een aand in 'n top-restaurant net aan die drank by hulle ete bestee het. (En, as 'n mens die stories op ons dorpie hoor, is hulle nog die kleiner vissies).
Dit is oor sulke mense wat Warren Buffet skryf. Die boonste, vermoënde laag van die bevolking. Hulle wat die kleinste groep is, maar verreweg die meeste geld besit.
Hy wil alleen maar dat almal regverdig behandel word. En dit sluit die mense met groot geld veral in. Die regtige ryke's.
Hierdie ryke's moet, skryf hy, bereid wees om, soos alle landsburgers, op gelyke vlak belasting te betaal. Hulle hoef nie eers 'n ekstra bedrag te betaal nie. As hulle op dieselfde vlak as ander gewone landsburgers belas word, kan die probleme van die staat verminder word en die gaping tussen ryk en arm verklein word.
Dit sê een van die rykste mense op die planeet. Hy is ingelig. Hy praat vanuit die binnekringe van rykdom en weelde.
Buffet vra dat mense met geld hul burgerlike verantwoordelikheid nakom en hul liefde vir hul land en gemeenskappe prakties, geldgewys uitleef.
Op sy manier, miskien nog meer effektief as Aartsbiskop Tutu, is hierdie man 'n profeet. Sy woorde sal nie goed by sommige afgaan nie.
Buffet val niemand aan nie. Hy is nie kwaad nie. Hy gee erkenning en hy beklemtoon: Daar is baie goeie mense wat hard werk vir hulle geld. En dit is goed.
Hy ontleed, soos hy ook sy sake doen, nugter, netjies met goeie argumente en met deeglike syfers. Mense kan moeilik met hom stry.
Ek lees hom in vanoggend se New York Times terwyl ek dink aan ons eie emeritus aartsbiskop en nadink oor die moeilike situasie wat hom kwel. Tutu, lyk dit vir my, wil nie domweg sê mense se besittings moet van hulle weggevat word nie. Hy wil hê dat daar van mense met relatiewe voorspoed, t.s.v. ekonomiese druk, 'n ekstra poging moet kom om die verskriklike armoede in ons land aan te spreek.
'n Mens sou moet Tutu kan saamstem. Dit sal help as mense dalk nou pyn vat net om ander wat in baie groot ellende is, te help. Wat nie beteken dat mense op hierdie stadium nie reeds baie om- en uitgee nie. Mense gee vir die kerk, vir opheffingswerk en spring dikwels self uit om ons land reg te ruk omdat hulle graag wil.
Die vraag is of Tutu genoeg inligting het om te praat oor wat werklik die groot verskil kan maak. Waar kan geld vandaan kom waar dit nie eers pyn sal veroorsaak nie?
Tutu se woorde kom uit sy hart uit. Hy kry elke dag te doen met die onderkant van die samelewing. Hy is werklik bekommerd om sulke omstrede uitlatings te waag. Dit is al 'n rede om te wil verstaan wat hy sê. Sy woorde kan die gemeenskap kwaad maak. Maar sy woorde herinner ons tog ook dat daar agterstande in ons wêreld en in ons land is, wat nou betyds en verstandig aangespreek moet word. Ons skuld dit vir ons kinders en vir mekaar om miskien tog maar op te offer.
Maar hoe gebeur dit op 'n regverdige manier?
Buffet help baie hiermee: hy wil uitwys dat ons mekaar kan help deur die gestruktureerde ongelykheid in belasting te bekyk. Want iewers help dit nie om bloot net af en toe 'n eenmalige skenking vir liefdadigheid te maak nie.
Buffet wys daarop dat as sommige mense 40 % aan belasting moet betaal en 'n groot deel van hulle swaarverdiende salaris moet afstaan, het dit tyd geword om na die groot visse te kyk wat deur belasting-aftrekkings op 'n onregverdige manier bevoordeel word en met baie minder belasting wegkom.
Dit gaan dus hier om gestruktureerde ongelykheid wat aangespreek moet word. Reg is reg: as ons belasting betaal, laat almal, die heel rykes, dit ook doen.
Dink maar net aan daardie mynmaatskappye wat onlangs deur skelm magnate leeggestroop is van hulle bate's sodat honderde werkers sonder inkomste sit en deur liefdadigheidsinstansies onderhou moet word. Hoeveel belasting het hulle betaal? En hoe gebeur dit dat hulle 'n hele gemeenskap van werkers so liederlik kan verarm deur hul stropery?
Ek sou graag wou sien dat 'n ingeligte persoon dieselfde syfers wat Buffet vir Amerika uitwerk, ook hier by ons uitspel.
Dit was vir my 'n teleurstelling dat die aartsbiskop sy belangrike opmerkings aan ras gekoppel het. Nêrens anders word die mag van geld wat alle rasgrense oorskry, so duidelik uitgewys as in ons land met al sy korrupsie nie.
Maar as 'n mens die ras-kant wegneem, sê Tutu iets wat Buffet as een van die rykste mense op die planeet ook sê. En kyk net hoe effektief sê Buffet sy profetiese woord - daardie eerste paragraaf uit sy pen is 'n treffer.
Dit alles neem ‘n mens in die hart van spiritualiteit in: iemand met wie God op reis is kan nie onbesorgd wees oor hulle wat ly en swaarkry nie. Ontferming is immers ‘n sleutelwoord in spiritualiteit. En ontferming behoort ook in die besigheidswêreld ‘n sleutelbegrip te wees. Waar dit nie die geval is nie, word lyding vererger en vyandskap tussen mense aangevuur.
Hier is die berig:
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011
Kelly Blair
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.