|
|
Home What's New Advice & Strategy Ask the Wizard Gambling online Play for Fun Site Map About Us Colors |
|
I read that Warren Buffet (the world’s third richest man) complained that he only paid a 17.7% federal tax rate, while his secretary paid 30%. This seems outrageous to me. Can you comment? — Joe from Nashville Normally I would say this is out of my area. However, as a former government actuary for eight years, I know a thing or two about taxes. From what I’ve read, most of Warren Buffet’s income is defined as capital gains, which is taxed at only a 15% rate. Like it or not, the tax laws allow it. What puzzled me is why his secretary was paying as much as 30%. According to this video, he was counting “payroll and income taxes.” By “payroll taxes” he obviously meant Social Security and Medicare taxes. Let’s see if 30% is a reasonable total federal tax rate for his secretary. In 2007 the highest tax bracket was taxed at 35%, but that only applies to income above $349,700. The income up to that point is taxed much less. Let’s assume his secretary is single, with no dependent children, and her salary was $100,000. First, let’s subtract the minimum deductions. In 2007 the standard deduction for single filers was $5,350. The personal deduction was $3,400. So, we’re left with $100,000 - $5,350 - $3,400 = $91,250 in income subject to income taxes. For single filers in 2007, the tax rate was 10% on the first $7825 in income, then 15% up to $31,850, then 25% up to $77,100, and 28% up to $160,850. So, her income tax would have been =0.1×$7,825+0.15×($31,850-$7825)+0.25×($77,100-$31,850)+0.28×($91,250-$77,100) = $19,660.75. That is only 19.7% of her income. All my assumptions like her income, filing status, and not itemizing worked against her, or for a higher tax rate. Now let’s do Social Security and Medicare. In 2007, the Social Security tax was 6.2%, up to incomes of $97,500, when it completely shuts off. The 2007 Medicare tax rate was 1.45%, with no cap. So, her combined Social Security and Medicare tax would have been 6.2%*97,500 + 1.45%*100000 = $7,495. Counting those taxes, her overall tax rate would have been ($19,660.75 + $7,495)/$100,000 = 27.2%. Still we’re 2.8% short of 30%. My best guess is that she is also considering the fact that ultimately she is the one paying the employer’s matching Social Security and Medicare tax. For those who don’t know, Social Security and Medicare taxes are really double that deducted from your checks. The employer pays the other half. However, some, including me, would argue that ultimately it is the employee who pays both. If the employer didn't have to pay that tax, he would have more money to pay his employees. It is easy to feel that way when you’re self-employed, like I am, and have to pay both shares. If you double the Social Security/Medicate tax, the rate is now ($19,660.75 + 2×$7,495)/$100,000 = 34.7%. I assume the 4.7% difference is because she makes less than $100,000, is married, has dependents, itemizes deductions, or some combination. The Social Security and Medicare taxes would not apply much to Warren Buffet. First, the Social Security cap of $97,500 would be insignificant to him. Second, those taxes apply to wages, not capital gains, as he defines most of his income to be. So, that is my best guess as to the math behind Mr. Buffet’s statement. Update: Shortly after this column appeared I received the following response. In the interests of fairness, I present the following argument that Mr. Buffet is paying too much in taxes.
I read with interest your answer to the 'outraged' person who thinks it is so unfair that Warren Buffet pays less percentage in taxes than his secretary. I was disappointed in your answer, which does not correct the misinformation that implies that Mr Buffet pays less tax than his secretary.
Hi, I Recently won a large slots jackpot in Vegas. Had around $38k
deducted for taxes. I'm a New Zealand citizen & tax resident. New Zealand has no gambling tax. The United States and New Zealand do have a joint tax agreement but I still had money deducted. I do believe I can get all or some back. I'm getting conflicting advice from tax people here. Can you recommend a good US tax accountant, or offer any advice? Enjoyed your site (esp. tipping re dealers & hosts) — Mike from Wellington, New Zealand.
This is getting out of my area, but I'll try to help. The IRS web site says that for this purpose, the U.S. has tax treaties with the following countries: Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Note that New Zealand is not on the list.
If you are a resident of one of the listed countries, and you hit a jackpot of $1,200 or more, then you should ask to fill out a form W8BEN. That should reduce, or in most cases, eliminate the withholding. Even if you are not from one of the listed countries, or don't fill out the form, you can still get the withholding back by filling out form 1040NR, or the simplified version the 1040NR-EZ. My own tax accountant is Marissa Chien EA, author of Tax Help for Gamblers. She does an outstanding job, but some might consider her expensive. For a 1040NR she says she charges about $1,000. She adds this form is usually incorrectly filled out by most others. Her e-mail is . IRS PDF's:
When do table game winnings become taxable? - Cliff from Aiea
In the U.S., any gambling winnings of any kind and any amount are taxable. However, with table games, it is on the honor system to report. September 11, 2007
©1998-2010 Wizard Of Odds Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy/Terms Contact Advertise About Us Links
The Wizard's other sites:
Wizard of Vegas,
Wizard of Macau,
Math Problems
The Wizard recommends:
The Bear Growls,
Casinomeister,
Online Casino Suite
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||