I know you're joking, but I suspect the massive resistance to a flat tax scheme is that it makes it much more difficult to bribe people or buy votes ...

If you notice a large portion of social programs are pushed by people who effectively say (by calling for higher taxes for people who earn a higher income) that these programs are not worth implementing if they had to pay for these programs themselves. With the other reforms I would implement it would be very difficult to sell social programs that the majority of people would not be paying for.

Essentially, if it meant that the tax rate would be increased from 25% to 30%, I doubt many progressive politicians would get much traction selling a universal day care program; but, as long as they can promise to tax the rich or pass on the debt to your great grandchildren, in the current system progressive politicans can be remarkably successful because they can promise anything without thinking of the costs.

Yeah, I completely agree. Since transparency is anathema to the political class, the absolute best way to avoid transparency while still pretending to be all for it is to make everything so maddeningly complicated that no sane person would even bother trying to figure it out.

US deficit is ~15 T, increasing at ~2T a year

The top 1% of US earns an average of $380 354/year http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

These pople pay on average 23.27% tax (same source). Assuming that in this top 1% they all pay that 23.27% rate, then increasing their taxable amount to 100% would give an extra $380 354 * 0.7673 /person/year = $291 845.6 /person/year.

With a population of 307 006 550, the top 1% is 3 070 065.5 people. Multiplying these two numbers together gives 0.9 Trillion/year. This is nearly half the increase in deficit. I would certainly describe 45% as a dent.

Note. I am not suggesting that this is a sensible idea, please do not assume I am. My point was merely that the statement quoted in this post is incorrect.

Because even if he did it that woudn't make all his friends decide to raise their taxes by themselves...

He's not asking for a Warren Buffet tax increase.

He's asking for a tax increase for everyone that makes more than a certain amount...

I guess, but every time the guy pokes his head up and bitches about how he's not paying enough taxes, he becomes the toast of the liberal blogosphere and media. This particular op-ed was the entire front page of the Puffington Host, and the first page of this thread reads like the Official Warren Buffett Fan Club. But if he really does feel so bad about not paying "his fair share", he can just cut a check to the Treasury right now for whatever he thinks he owes. He won't, though. His being wracked by guilt doesn't stop him from taking every deduction and exploiting every loophole he can, and since he even came out in favor of the private jet deduction Obama has been demagoging, I guess you'll have to pry those write-offs from his cold, dead hands.

Also, it occurs to me that his do-gooder billionaire pals are leaving their fortunes to philantrophic organizations and not to the feds. I suspect that's because they know it will be put to good use this way, instead of being blown in the span of a month on Medicare fraud and waste.

Here's a CNN article explaining what the impact on the budget would be if the Bush tax cut was repelled for people earning over 250 000$ a year.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/11/pf/tax_increase_rich/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

Basically it would bring an additional 750 billion dollars over a decade.
It won't fix the deficit in itself , but nonetheless it's a good start.

this and Alan Greenspan

Your numbers are way off.

You can't multiply US population by 1% because the 'Top 1%' are actually income earners, and not among the entirety of the general populace.

How many people are actually in the 'Top 1%'? According to The Tax Foundation, an un-biased source of tax information, there are actually 1,400,000 people that filed and were in the top 1%. They paid $392 billion USD in income taxes, or 23% of earnings after all deductions were considered. Therefore, assuming the rest of your math is correct, the actual dent made would be about 20%, not 45%.

Exactly.

Why isn't Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet giving their money away for social welfare administrated by the government? Rather, you have Warren Buffet giving away his entire fortune upon his death to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, not HUD. Not Medicare. And with good reason: The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation are going to help a whole lot more people than HUD or other American social welfare programs ever have. Our poverty rate continues to stay stagnant and rise at times, despite the fact that 50% of all federal expenditures are redistributive in measure (taking from one person and giving to another).

Warren Buffet would agree with you.

Becky: OK, there were a couple of emails that came in that people that said if you think the government should be able to tax more money, why don't you just give your money away to the government instead of charity.

Buffett: Well, that's a choice and it's an option that... If I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multi-billionaire, or give it to the government, I'd absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations, will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.