She's seriously rich, this woman.  From Forbes -- but you can find this story all over the place:

Warren Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the president’s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss...

Insofar as Buffett (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between$100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate oftwelve percent. This is below Buffett’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffett must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.

Of course, we don't know how much over $200,000 Buffett's secretary makes.  Though it's clearly enough to buy a second house.  From Foxnews.com:

Despite a heavy tax burden, Warren Buffett’s secretary last year was able to purchase a second home in Arizona, a residence complete with a swimming pool and a “professional PGA putting green,” according to real estate records.

I begrudge her neither her putting green nor her salary.  I merely note that class warfare -- especially as practiced by the disingenuous Buffett and the dishonest Obama -- almost always blows back.  

We should be praising this secretary -- she bought a second home, which sustained a few jobs in the real estate, escrow, gardening, golf equipment, and retail sectors; she's good enough at her job to earn a very high salary; she pays her taxes.  Why is this woman not a national hero?  A symbol of a productive and useful rich person, spreading her wealth around in ways that increase the national pie?  

Obama and his liberal acolytes are looking at this from the wrong end.  This isn't about Buffett's tax rates!  Taxes on Buffett shouldn't be raised!  Taxes on Debbie Bosanek should be cut!  Deeply!  Cut now and cut low!  

Free Debbie Bosanek to buy more houses, more golf outfits, more of whatever floats her boat.  (Maybe she wants to buy a boat?  Fine with me!  We have lots of unemployed boatwrights in this country!)  

Here's an easy way to tell if you're a liberal or a conservative.  The liberal hears a story like this and thinks, "Oh my God!  Warren Buffett needs to pay more in taxes!"

A conservative hears a story like this and thinks, "Oh my God!  That poor woman needs a tax cut!"

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

Bill Clinton:

"Is she single?"

Trace Urdan
Joined
May '10
Trace Urdan

 The Smoking Gun has pictures. I think Fox might be stretching it with the "professional PGA putting green" description. Calling PolitiFact!

Percival
Joined
Mar '11
Percival

Pseudodionysius: Bill Clinton:

"Is she single?" · 7 minutes ago

Like Bill Clinton would ask.  Or care.

Whiskey Sam
Joined
Jul '10
Whiskey Sam

I don't know if it has changed, but years ago when Gallup would ask people, without providing a number, what they thought a fair amount of taxes was for people to pay, respondents would come up with some number around 10% and be surprised rich people were paying at a much higher rate.  I would wager most people still have no clue what percentage they or the rich are paying, and it's probably more than they would abstractly think was fair.

Misthiocracy
Joined
Aug '10
Misthiocracy

Is "secretary" her actual job title?

Misthiocracy
Joined
Aug '10
Misthiocracy
Whiskey Sam: I don't know if it has changed, but years ago when Gallup would ask people, without providing a number, what they thought a fair amount of taxes was for people to pay, respondents would come up with some number around 10% and be surprised rich people were paying at a much higher rate.  I would wager most people still have no clue what percentage they or the rich are paying, and it's probably more than they would abstractly think was fair.

This probably isn't news to many of y'all, but New York Magazine did a (widely criticized) poll of Occupy Wall Street protesters, and one of the questions was, "What is the top marginal income tax rate for the richest 1%?"

Two-thirds of respondents thought it was below 25%.

A quarter of respondents admitted that they did not know.

Only a tenth of respondents said it was between 25% and 50%.

The correct answer is 35%.

etoiledunord
Joined
Jun '10
etoiledunord

I hope Warren at least pays her cab fare to the food shelf and back. That's the least he can do.

wilber forge
Joined
Oct '10
wilber forge

Did anyone expect his personal secretary to be a Temp ?  At that grade, what might her expense account and gifts amount to ?

Nothing to see here, move along...

Edited on Jan 26 at 1:32pm
Tom Lindholtz
Joined
May '10
Tom Lindholtz

I hear the story and think, any person who submits themselves to being used as a prop in a SOTU address and who isn't wearing a military uniform is a whore.

Frozen Chosen
Joined
Aug '10
Frozen Chosen
Whiskey Sam: I don't know if it has changed, but years ago when Gallup would ask people, without providing a number, what they thought a fair amount of taxes was for people to pay, respondents would come up with some number around 10% and be surprised rich people were paying at a much higher rate.  I would wager most people still have no clue what percentage they or the rich are paying, and it's probably more than they would abstractly think was fair. · 3 hours ago

10% to the Lord, 10% to the Feds and 5% to your state leaves you with 75% to do with as you please - no matter what your income!

Sounds good to me.

bereket kelile
Joined
Oct '10
bereket kelile

I think our side needs to point out that when the Left looks at Buffett and his secretary their instinctive reaction is to tax Buffett more whereas our response is to tax his secretary less. It says something about us and what we think is the problem. As Thatcher said, they'd rather everyone be worse off with more equality rather than see everyone better off with more inequality.

Edited on Jan 26 at 3:19pm
Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

 In ObamaLand there are exactly three social classes:

--Oppressors.

--Victims.

--Obama.

Oppresors are Enemy.

Victims are Dependent.

Obama is The One.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In