In the op-ed, entitled “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich,” Buffett makes the case that taxes need to be raised on the wealthiest Americans, and that the future of our country economically depends on this action. He writes that the super-rich, himself included, have been “spared” of having to make any real sacrifice:

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.

Buffett makes the argument that most of his “mega-rich” friends “wouldn’t mind being told to pay more taxes” if it meant they could help their fellow citizens who are suffering and their country that they love. Buffett’s suggestion is this:

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.

Some of the language he used in the piece is quite direct and has set Twitter ablaze with discussion. His piece is generating so much buzz that he is trending worldwide – as is the phrase “Stop Coddling the Super,” an obvious reference to his op-ed title.

Here’s the only problem, Twitter: the man you’re so fervently discussing isn’t an all-you-can eat food trough. Yes, “Warren Buffet” is trending instead of “Buffett.” Sigh.

Spelling errors aside, Twitter is a hot spot for economic debate right now – with both sides of the argument being represented. First, the Buffett supporters -

And the flip side –

What do you think? Let us know in the comments.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who are good friends, were interviewed by Liz Claman of the Fox Business Network.  Claman did her job, asking each man about the acquisition, and neither billionaire treated the matter as inconsequential.  But both of them gave little more than a combination of respectful party lines and genuinely amusing rich-guy jokes.

 Bill Gates

As reported by Todd Bishop, Gates stated, "Steve Ballmer, the CEO, announced on Saturday in his letter that we had walked away and we were pursuing an independent strategy.  And so that’s where the focus is.  And, you know, obviously we have a strong competitor in that category, and so we need to do breakthrough software."

Later, in response to a question, Buffett didn’t suggest anything should have been done differently.  "I would not presume to advise Bill in that game," he said.  "That’s his game."

Then the conversation moved on to whether Gates or Buffett should be higher on Forbes’s list of rich men, how houses can be built on an extreme budget, and the speed with which Sue Decker passed Gates some salt at a dinner.

Steve Ballmer doesn’t appear to have done anything that remotely bothered his company’s chairman.