Like Buffet said, his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does… and you are worried about the $ value he pays being higher.
This is a statement you hear quoted often, and while I have no evidence supporting this (I don’t obviously know his specific situation), I have to call BS on Buffet every time I hear it.
Short background - We started a business ten years ago, and we have been successful. As our personal and business income grew, the company/shareholders looked for ways to minimize taxes within the structure of the IRS codes. The criteria was to not get “too close to the line”, but to use every reasonable method to minimize taxes.
First attempt was to use our corporate accountant and tax attorney (local/regional firm). Little pieces here and there, but nothing earth shattering. Looked at corporate structures, accounting practices, etc. nada…
Then we went the route of a large, national firm. No problem - we can reduce your taxes to 15%, blah, blah, blah … Big fee. Fortunately, we stipulated in the contract that they define their performance relative to their fee. At the end of the day, there were a few crumbs here and there, but again, nothing substantive. In our final discussions with them, the Project Manger effectively admitted that most of the tax breaks were eliminated from the code in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Remember, these guys are the experts - ex-IRS folks, tax attorneys, etc.
Now, before you hard-liner on either side start, realize that, yes, this is the second half of the Reagan tax plan, but that the '86 bill was actually offered/authored by Gephardt and Bradley (both Dems). While the large incremental rates were eliminated in the bills, which people love to quote as the tax breaks for “the rich” from 50% to 28% (now 35%, thanks to Bush I), so were the “loopholes” eliminated, that allowed people to avoid those large marginal rates. While this act was supposed to be revenue neutral, history shows that individual taxpayers benefitted, while corporate taxes increased substantially, as did taxes for those individuals whose incomes were directly tied to corporate performance (“C” or “S”).
IMO, the only best that happened in the '86 “reform” was the simplification of the tax code, which, again IMO, could undergo a couple more rounds of simplification.
Bottom line, we’ve spent a lot of time looking into ways to minimize taxes, and come to the conclusion that there are no significant methods available anymore. In fact, while the top marginal rate is 35%, if you are a high earner, as many of our employee/shareholders are, then by tax laws, you can pay more than the marginal rate, if you look at your “actual income” vs. your taxable income. A number of our shareholders/employees do … In other words, not the “loopholes” work against you, inflating your “taxable income” far above your actual income, thus leading to an effectively higher than 35% marginal tax rate.
Didn’t I say “short background” 
Personally, I have no problem paying a “fair” tax. I’d just like someone define what that is.
Bottom line, I call BS on Buffet. He’s using his position as richer than God to spout his philosophy. I respect that - what I don’t respect in these arguments is not being intellectually honest.
I think I need to go do some bricks …
Dan