American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Doppel and Stan insist that Obama and Buffett are lying, about whether millionaires pay a lower federal income tax rate than the middle class.

Oddly, I can't find any articles that back them up. No article I've seen (including ones on WSJ and Bloomberg) dispute the claim, and most provide a similar explanation to what I did. See, Obama and Buffett weren't comparing averages, or saying that all millionaires pay lower rates. They are just saying it happens. Everybody seems to understand that, except Doppel and Stan.

So guys, where's the proof of the lie? Where's the beef?

That Wendy's commercial is a classic....
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten; 419420]Doppel and Stan insist that Obama and Buffett are lying, about whether millionaires pay a lower federal income tax rate than the middle class.

Oddly, I can't find any articles that back them up. No article I've seen (including ones on WSJ and Bloomberg) dispute the claim, and most provide a similar explanation to what I did. See, Obama and Buffett weren't comparing averages, or saying that all millionaires pay lower rates. They are just saying it happens. Everybody seems to understand that, except Doppel and Stan.

So guys, where's the proof of the lie? Where's the beef?

That Wendy's commercial is a classic.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0[/url][/QUOTE]So Esten you could not find any quotes from Buffett which were contradicted by fact. I had no problem at all finding these quotes. Just Google 'Warren Buffett Tax Quotes Secretary'.

Ok Esten here are Warren Buffett's quotes:

Source of the first quote:

[url]http://tusb.stanford.edu/2007/07/warren_buffet_has_a_lower_tax.html[/url]

[QUOTE=]Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.[/QUOTE]Source of the second quote:

[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece[/url]

[QUOTE=]Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.[/QUOTE]Now Esten Google 'IRS 2010 Tax Brackets' or just go to [url]www.irs.gov[/url]

HERE IS THE PROOF BUFFETT IS LYING!

Since we are talking about 2010 income and Buffett clearly states his secretary makes $60, 000 dollars per year according to the IRS the income levels from $34, 000 up to $82, 400 per year is taxed at 25% and these brackets are for the highest tax rate of Single with no Deductions!

The 25% tax rate is applied only to earnings at that level, $34K to $82.4K. The income earned between $0 and $8. 375K is taxed at 10% while the next level of $8. 375K to $34K is taxed at 15%. Which means Buffett's secretary's marginal rate is 18% max if she was taxed on the entire $60K without benefit of even the STANDARD PERSONAL DEDUCTION afforded to anyone in that tax bracket.

So Buffett's claim his secretary paid 30% is a bald face LIE.

According to the IRS the next tax levels are 28%, 33% and the top rate is 35%, nope no 30% tax rate so you can not say he was talking bracket and not effective rate.

Don't choke on the beef big guy.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;419424]So Esten you could not find any quotes from Buffett which were contradicted by fact. I had no problem at all finding these quotes. Just Google 'Warren Buffett Tax Quotes Secretary'.[/QUOTE]He's not worth your time of day. The guy just ignores the facts when proven wrong.

Here's the quote from the article I posted below, right before Esten claimed he was searching in vain for any article saying that Obama or Buffett was lying: "Mr. Obama said, 'Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. ' [u]The problem with that statement is that it's a lie."[/u]

The article went on to prove it with numbers. I linked the article. Here's another one: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/09/buffett-rule-is-based-on-anecdotal.html You can only miss these if you deliberately blind yourself to them.

It's no use arguing with Esten. He essentially puts his hands over his ears and shouts,"LALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU," whenever he doesn't like the results. As I've said before, he's a lost cause.

Esten, I don't know how you define "middle class", but since 40% to 50% of "taxpayers" actually don't pay income taxes, statements coming from Obama, Buffet, and you don't make a lot of sense. The three of you believe that social security and medicare should be lumped in with the income tax. Could you tell me why payments towards pensions and medical insurance should be considered income taxes?

The 15% tax on dividends and capital gains received by shareholders is on top of a 35% tax paid by corporations. If Obama, Buffet and you have your way, it will be a 43% tax on top of a 35% tax. Because Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, doesn't pay dividends, and because Buffet doesn't sell Berkshire Hathaway stock, he doesn't pay taxes. Buffet's positions are self serving. I prefer Art Laffer's proposal. A 50% tax on the wealth of all billionaires. I'd make Laffer's proposal more restrictive though. Confine the tax to individuals like Buffet who pay minimal tax while accumulating great wealth. Buffet paid $6. 9 million tax in either 2009 or 2010 according to the editorial he wrote for the New York Times. Taking a wild guess, he may pay 20 times that, or $140 million over his lifetime. His net worth, depending on when you measured it, has been in the range of around $30 billion to $50 billion in recent years. He will pay a fraction of 1% of his net worth in taxes over his lifetime. If measures proposed by you, Obama, and Buffet are implemented, he'll still just pay a fraction of 1%.
I'm being disingenuous here because I actually believe that Berkshire's corporate income taxes caused Buffet to indirectly pay more than his fair share of the income tax. But the man is a hypocrite -- if he wants to promote higher taxes on dividends and the estate tax, fine, but he should call a spade a spade. A high tax on dividends makes a non-dividend paying company like Berkshire comparatively more attractive to investors. The estate tax helps Berkshire accumulate family-owned businesses -- whose owners have to sell out to Buffet or someone else in order to pay the estate tax. From his personal perspective, taxes on dividends and capital gains and the estate tax don't matter, because Buffet won't pay them.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 419394]I guess you didn't read the Internal Revenue Service's release of the ACTUAL tax rates paid by households making $1 million per year or more.

There are only 320, 000 households in this group.

The average "middle class" households paid an effective rate of 15%

The households making $1 million and greater paid an effective rate of 29%[/QUOTE]I agree with the 29% for $1 million+ households, but the 15% for middle class looks too high. Based on IRS statistics for 2009, the middle class paid around 10% to 12.5%. Go to [url]http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html[/url]. Then click on "2009" under "All Returns: Selected Income and Tax Items," and download the Excel spreadsheet. Look at column S.

The tax rate in 2009 for those with $1 million+ income was about 2.5X the tax rate for those with $30,000 to $100,000 income.

I searched for credible references beyond the one article that was posted. I found none claiming a lie. Citing IRS tax tables isn't proof that Buffett lied about his secretary. There's a good reason reputable news media aren't making such accusations. You need evidence.

Since you guys know so much about the finances of Warren Buffett's secretary, tell us:

What was her bonus? And what taxable income did she report on her Form 1040?

[QUOTE=Esten; 419448]I searched for credible references beyond the one article that was posted. I found none claiming a lie. Citing IRS tax tables isn't proof that Buffett lied about his secretary. There's a good reason reputable news media aren't making such accusations. You need evidence.

Since you guys know so much about the finances of Warren Buffett's secretary, tell us:

What was her bonus? And what taxable income did she report on her Form 1040?[/QUOTE]It's not a lie. Neither was Bill Clinton's statement,"I did not have sex [sexual intercourse] with that woman."

The way you and Obama and Buffet calculate income tax rates is misleading and just as bad as a lie. You call social security and medicare payments income tax. You ignore the taxes Buffet pays indirectly by virtue of his ownership of Berkshire Hathaway. And you extrapolate Buffet's tax situation to every other person who makes over $1 million per year.

I think you're onto something though. It wouldn't surprise me if Warren Buffett's secretary is getting paid $250,000+ per year, so that her tax rate is higher than someone you'd consider "middle class."

Esten, Buffett has referenced in many statements his secretary made $60, 000 in salary on which she paid according to Buffett 30% in income tax.

Those are Buffett's perimeters not mine.

For her to have paid an effective rate of 30% in income taxes she would have had to have been in the top 2 to 3% of wage earners. You're now trying to tell us she got over $940K in bonuses? This is beyond absurd; the math just does not work unless you operate in an alternative universe where 2+2=6 billion.

Guess you failed math and reading as well as critical thinking. ROFLMAO.

Stan's right, discussions with you is like a discussion with a petulant child. But I have to disagree with Stan on the age, not a 3 year old but more like one that is not quite potty trained yet.

The main stream media has not called out Buffett for the lie, what a shocker! They have not called out Obama on his either. Other news agencies and political writers have, but I am sure you consider them part of the great right wing conspiracy and untrustworthy.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;419450]I think you're onto something though. It wouldn't surprise me if Warren Buffett's secretary is getting paid $250,000+ per year, so that her tax rate is higher than someone you'd consider "middle class."[/QUOTE]Doppel's right, and I quoted it earlier in this thread a few days back. Buffett claimed his secretary earned $60, 000 and paid a 30 percent tax rate.

At $60, 000, and assuming his secretary is single, takes only the standard deductions, made no retirement plan contribution and had no other exemptions, the secretary would pay 16. 1 percent. A simple tax return, assuming the worst case scenario, proves the point. The tax wouldn't even approach 30 percent, even if you included payroll taxes, which no one doing this comparison would include.

Now, if Buffett paid some huge bonus to his secretary, which is the same as income, but didn't disclose that, well, then, he's lying. He simply omitted a crucial fact. Lies are defined two ways: The positive misstatement of a known fact, or the intentional omission of a material, known fact which would render a statement misleading.

If I say,"Give me $500 and I will paint your house," that statement would be a lie in either of two scenarios. First, if I take the $500 and have no intention of paining your house, I have lied. Second, if I take the $500 and fail to disclose that I don't intend to paint the house for 50 years, I have lied. Only by engaging in Clintonesque semantics can someone say that the second scenario is not a lie. So it is with Buffett.

Stan, to come up with the 18% effectice tax rate, I had to consider the entire amount, $60K, as line 32 / taxable income no deductions what so ever.

If you run the numbers at our current tax bracket's to find out what level of income was necessary for a 30% effective rate, Esten, Buffett and Obama's argument is a joke.

Esten is using the Clinton defense,"that dependends on what is, is".

Esten is just trying to jerk our chain. We already smoked him.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;419462]Esten is just trying to jerk our chain. We already smoked him.[/QUOTE]Exactly.

Jackson

Now that cracks are starting to appear in their argument, those accusing Buffett of a lie are attempting to re-define "lie" and banding together in solidarity. LOL! Since they haven't yet admitted they were wrong, let's continue.

This all goes back to a speech Buffett gave at a fundraiser in 2007. According to ABCNews last week,"A few years ago, Buffett said his secretary made $60, 000 and paid 29 percent in taxes.". He didn't claim that a 60K income is taxed at 29%. If it was a mere matter of tax brackets then he would have just consulted the IRS tables, as those here have been doing. Buffett was clear this was based on a survey in his office. The whole point of the exercise was to look at [i]effective[/i] tax rates for people in his office.

[QUOTE]You're now trying to tell us she got over $940K in bonuses? This is beyond absurd; the math just does not work unless you operate in an alternative universe where 2+2=6 billion.

Guess you failed math and reading as well as critical thinking. ROFLMAO.[/QUOTE]Your 940K isn't even close. It works out closer to a 240K bonus. Add 60K base for total 300K. This is based on 2006 tables for a single filer and including FICA taxes. I'd be glad to share the math if you dispute. Now a 240K bonus sounds high. But see this:

Bonus Bonanza
[url]http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/item_84yJMCaGF06H9IZaSsrttO[/url]

[QUOTE]While the average is only a statistical snapshot, the real bonus packages. To be distributed in the first quarter of next year. Are equally impressive, ranging from around $3, 000 for a mailroom clerk to $20 million for top bosses.

"It's not unusual for an administrative assistant or a secretary of a very senior person to get more than $200, 000," said Alan Sklover, a compensation lawyer who represents Wall Street executives.[/QUOTE]A 240K bonus for Buffett's admin is right in line with the quote from this compensation expert.

So Buffett's alleged statement at this fundraiser back in 2007 is plausibly correct, since he was only stating the [i]effective[/i] tax rate of [i]his own secretary[/i].

Esten, why bother to go back only 5 years for a tax rate you like, why not go back to 1959 or 1955 to find a rate that fits your 'facts'. We smoked you but you just can't admit it.

Your defense and reasoning is becoming so convoluted as to be posted in my office for my staff to get a good laugh each day. This one has them rolling on the floor.

Keep them coming Esten, my folks love the comic relief.

A perfect example of Buffett hypocrisy took place at an Obama campaign event. Well, it couldn't have been a campaign event because Obama is flying to all of these things, raising millions of dollars for himself, and paying for the Air Force One ride with government funds. So, it definitely wasn't a campaign event.

But, to the point, here's what this obvious Google plant asked: "I don't have a job, but that's because I've been lucky enough to live in Silicon Valley for a while and work for a small startup down the street here that did quite well. So, I'm unemployed by choice. My question is: Would you please raise my taxes," a man at the Linked In townhall in California asked President Obama today. [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/26/rich_townhall_audience_member_asks_obama_please_raise_my_taxes.html[/url]

Well, isn't that special? So this guy wants higher taxes now that he's made a pile of dough, is "unemployed" by choice, and owns Google stock which pays no dividends. Of course, he doesn't even say he owns any more Google stock, so even if it did pay dividends, he may be shielded, and he may already have paid all capital gains at the low rates he now wants raised.

As can be seen the in the linked video, this guy, like Buffett, wants taxes raised on everyone else. He has no job, so he has no salary, no federal income tax, pays no social security tax, no medicare tax. He owns (or owned) Google stock, so he receives no dividends on which to pay tax. He probably sold all or a large portion of his Google stock already, so he likely wouldn't even be affected by a capital gains hike.

But, the Left points to comments from folks like this as their justification for raising taxes on everyone else except themselves. Elizabeth Warren's recent preposterous comments are just additional examples of this tortured reasoning and hypocrisy.

Why doesn't anyone ever suggest to these folks: Write a check. Here's the IRS's address. If you really feel guilty about the pile of dough you've socked away, what's stopping you? Why is it that you now want to raise taxes on everyone else besides yourself?

After WWII many Nazi's tried to justify their actions with the excuse that they were just following orders. It was decided that this excuse was inadequate. Any nitwit should have known that their orders were is gross violation of human rights.

I get the same sense with Esten and gang. Any nitwit can tell that Obama is a moron and his plans are a fast track to increased unemployment, hunger and misery. However I have the feeling that Esten and gang will one day defend their ridiculous support for Obama with the explanation that they were just following orders.