Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is "class warfare" or "punishing success." In fact, it is simple rationality. These people are wealthy enough that they can afford to pay a slightly higher tax. Whereas for people who do not have what they have, taxes can be a serious burden.
Someone who makes millions of dollars a year is not seriouly impinged by a 39% instead of a 36% tax. He is still wealthy. He can still afford a highly prosperous lifestyle and impart the same to his children. He does not suffer severely from higher taxes; indeed he does not suffer at all. He can still have his yacht and his spacious house and his Lamborghini. Meanwhile the budget gains income far disproportionate to the impact that such a tax rise has upon the millionaire.
Really, how much did millionaires suffer from slighly higher taxation levels that existed under Clinton? In 1990s, America's number of millionaires and billionaires multiplied. To think that someone with that level of wealth would be "punished," or be "oppressed," or be made to suffer, by an extra 3% tax is ridiculous. They are rich at a lower tax level; they remain rich at a slightly higher tax level.
Think about it. If you make $10 million a year, then a 3% rise in income tax amounts to an extra $300,000 a year in taxes. That sum of money, for someone who makes this much, would be easy to part with; and it would pay the salaries of six to ten government employees. The rationality of raising taxes on highest incomes is superlative. The taxed suffer the least; the budget gains the most.
It works at the economic level; it also works at the human level. Significant gains are made for the treasury through a process that results in no suffering on anybody's part. What is small money for the millionaires becomes vast money for the treasury. Maximal gain is achieved with minimal negative results.
The most amusing part of this is that the same conservatives who are uncompromisingly against the slightly higher taxes on highest incomes look back to 1950s as a time that they want America to be like. In 1950s, the highest income bracket tax was 92%. That's right, 92%. Nobody on today's political scene is dreaming of bringing taxes on anyone up to anywhere near that level. What is being recommended is a rational move: Add slightly to the taxes on the people who have vast amounts of money to contribute, and who can easily afford to pay the difference.
It's not about class welfare, and it is not about punishing anything or anyone. It is about achieving fiscal sanity through actions that impact minimally upon the people involved. People who have large amounts of money will not be made to suffer by paying a bit extra, whereas the money gained this way for the treasury will be substantial. So when someone as wealthy as Warren Buffett is recommending raising taxes on highest incomes, he is speaking reason.