Printable View
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;419473]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.[/QUOTE]The Buffett statement you've been debating for several days is from 2007, and references 2006 tax returns. For fact-checking it is the 2006 tax tables that should be used.
You're not very good at this, are you?
Neither are you since both Obama and Buffett have framed this as recent. I did check it and it is generally accepted, even by the "main stream media". To be from the 2010 but no later than 2009 tax years.
I love the way you like to move it around so you are not wrong. It's a hoot to watch you twisting and turning.
Come on Esten say it. "I'm wrong"
I've got an office full of accountants and CPA's and they love to see these post's keep them coming.
By the way I noticed you are now including FICA in the "effective tax rate" calculation. What's next, you going to include Medicaid then both sides of Medicaid and FICA?
As a closing thought, since you are now trying to say the Buffett's secretay is making a total of $300K, making her one of the "evil rick", what's your problem with her paying an effective rate of 30% Thought this was what you wanted?
The IRS is still waiting on Buffett's and your check's!
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 419479]Neither are you since both Obama and Buffett have framed this as recent. I did check it and it is generally accepted, even by the "main stream media". To be from the 2010 but no later than 2009 tax years.
I love the way you like to move it around so you are not wrong. It's a hoot to watch you twisting and turning.
Come on Esten say it."I'm wrong"
I've got an office full of accountants and CPA's and they love to see these post's keep them coming.
By the way I noticed you are now including FICA in the "effective tax rate" calculation. What's next, you going to include Medicaid then both sides of Medicaid and FICA?
As a closing thought, since you are now trying to say the Buffett's secretay is making a total of $300K, making her one of the "evil rick", what's your problem with her paying an effective rate of 30% Thought this was what you wanted?
The IRS is still waiting on Buffett's and your check's![/QUOTE]Buffett made the statement both in 2007 and 2011. Most recently, he did so in a NYTimes Op-Ed piece he wrote in August. That's linked earlier in this thread somewhere. The 2007 statement was made when he was out campaigning for Hillary Clinton. That's linked in here, as well.
To be fair, the only time he said his secretary made $60, 000 (at least the only reference I found) was in 2007. There has never been any suggestion that the secretary made a bonus, much less one in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That statement is just wishful liberal thinking to make Buffett not look like a liar on this. Hell, maybe she won the lottery or received some large inheritance one of those years, and Buffett's just rolling it all up together but forgetting to mention it. It doesn't matter. There's little doubt he's been lying.
Pummelling Esten seems cruel after a while. It's part of the reason I've stopped responding to him. Can we expect the Village Idiot to be smart enough to admit he's wrong? Doubtful.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;419479]Neither are you since both Obama and Buffett have framed this as recent. I did check it and it is generally accepted, even by the "main stream media". To be from the 2010 but no later than 2009 tax years.[/QUOTE]Doppel, in the recent media coverage Buffett did not reference a recent 60K salary for his secretary. The 60K figure you were debating was from a statement Buffett apparently made in 2007, applicable to tax year 2006. Please post a link proving otherwise.
It's uncanny, almost every single time you post you stick your foot in your mouth.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;419474]A perfect example of Buffett hypocrisy[/QUOTE]Meanwhile, Stan goes shuffling off to another effort to smear Warren Buffett, his tail between his legs after his argument was exposed as false. Although his new story doesn't involve Buffett, Stan still mentions "Buffett Hypocrisy" twice. I guess he needs to get his jabs in at Buffett any way possible.
This new story is about a former director of consumer marketing and brand management for Google between 1999-2005. No doubt he's cashed out some of his stock and is worth millions. How much he's cashed out, and where else he might have his money invested, isn't disclosed.
But once again, Stan is confident he knows enough about the finances of another person to reach his own conclusions. In this case, Stan is confident this former Google guy likely wouldn't be affected by a capital gains hike. Stan then portrays him as a hypocrite for wanting to raise other people's taxes but not his own.
But neither Buffett or this guy can be reasonably called a hypocrite. Both of them clearly want their own taxes raised. We know Buffett has the income. It's plausible the former Google guy does too; as a multi-millionaire it's unlikely his net worth is sitting in a bank account. It's more likely some of it is in investments, including Google and / or other stock. We don't know for sure.
Stan is quick to question and smear the character of others, but it is he himself that needs to look in the mirror.
[QUOTE=Esten;419482]But neither Buffett or this guy can be reasonably called a hypocrite. Both of them clearly want their own taxes raised.[/QUOTE]Read this, I see no need to write it twice: [url]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Administration&p=419442&viewfull=1#post419442[/url]
Using your preference and ignoring corporate income taxes he pays indirectly by virtue of his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway, my educated guess is that Buffett will pay income tax on about 0.35% of the wealth he managed to accumulate. Under the Obama / Buffett / Esten tax plan for millionaires, he might pay 0.5% instead. And that's not per year. That's over his entire lifetime! Right, Buffett wants his own taxes raised, but by a ridiculously small amount considering how much he has made.
Buffett is a self serving hypocrite. Read the last paragraph in the link above if you want to know why he's self serving. Buffett's proposed tax plan provides competitive advantages to Berkshire Hathaway. One I didn't mention in the previous post -- if an ordinary millionaire buys a dividend-paying stock he'll pay 43% federal tax on the dividend under the Obama/Buffet/Esten plan (the rate come January 1, 2013, assuming there's no additional added millionaire's tax). Buffett by virtue of owning the stock through Berkshire Hathaway will pay 10.5% tax -- corporations like Berkshire pay a lower tax rate on dividends than individuals.
Esten. You are in good company!
Bill Gates, the wealthiest man in the US has put his support behind the so-called 'Robin Hood' tax targeting the wealthy which would be given to the poor. Gates will endorse the adoption of a controversial financial transactions tax (FTT) to be used as a new source of development aid for poor countries in a report to the G20 summit in November.
"The FTT ship has sailed, and the world's richest man is on board" says Richard Gower of Oxfam International.
And the AP gang thought only Obama and Esten were the socialists!
You never answer the quetion just dance around it.
Bill Clinton's famous tactic. Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter attacks!
Keep them coming Esten, we love it. My folks look forward to coming in every morning to read your latest missive. It's becoming a big hit.
Even the two who voted for Obama in '08 can not believe how you keep screwing it up.
You should apply for the job of press secretary for the White House.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 419483]Using your preference and ignoring corporate income taxes he pays indirectly by virtue of his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway, my educated guess is that Buffett will pay income tax on about 0. 35% of the wealth he managed to accumulate. Under the Obama / Buffett / Esten tax plan for millionaires, he might pay 0. 5% instead. And that's not per year. That's over his entire lifetime! Right, Buffett wants his own taxes raised, but by a ridiculously small amount considering how much he has made.
Buffett is a self serving hypocrite. Read the last paragraph in the link above if you want to know why he's self serving. Buffett's proposed tax plan provides competitive advantages to Berkshire Hathaway. One I didn't mention in the previous post. If an ordinary millionaire buys a dividend-paying stock he'll pay 43% federal tax on the dividend under the Obama / Buffet / Esten plan (the rate come January 1, 2013, assuming there's no additional added millionaire's tax). Buffett by virtue of owning the stock through Berkshire Hathaway will pay 10. 5% tax. Corporations like Berkshire pay a lower tax rate on dividends than individuals.[/QUOTE]Tiny, read Buffett's article.
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html[/url]
This is all about [u]individual[/u] taxes. Not corporate. Buffett said his 2010 federal tax bill was $6, 938, 744. He also said that was only 17. 4% of his taxable income. Making his taxable income about 40M.
Buffett doesn't think it's right that effective rates for wealthy people can be lower than what some in the middle class pay. To correct that he proposes to raise rates on taxable income in excess of $1 million. And that's what the 'Buffett Rule' does. It establishes a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year, to ensure they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers. If that rate is set at 28%, Buffett's tax would increase from 6.9M to 11.2M. The rate could be higher. In fact, Buffett also wrote he would leave rates alone for the other 99.7% of taxpayers (something I disagree with).
So his proposal is to raise taxes on people like him but not others. This is far from self serving hypocrisy. It is the complete opposite.
[QUOTE=Esten; 419491]Tiny, read Buffett's article.
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html[/url]
This is all about [u]individual[/u] Taxes. Not corporate. Buffett said his 2010 federal tax bill was $6, 938, 744. He also said that was only 17. 4% of his taxable income. Making his taxable income about 40M.
Buffett doesn't think it's right that effective rates for wealthy people can be lower than what some in the middle class pay. To correct that he proposes to raise rates on taxable income in excess of $1 million. And that's what the 'Buffett Rule' does. It establishes a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year, to ensure they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers. If that rate is set at 28, Buffett's tax would increase from 6. 9M to 11. 2M. The rate could be higher. In fact, Buffett also wrote he would leave rates alone for the other 99. 7% of taxpayers (something I disagree with).
So his proposal is to raise taxes on people like him but not others. This is far from self serving hypocrisy. It is the complete opposite.[/QUOTE]Esten, OK, based on your comments, although we disagree about how we'd go about reducing the deficit, I think we do both agree that you won't make a dent in it by increasing tax rates on the top 0.3% of taxpayers. If you carefully read what follows I believe you'll agree that Buffet's proposal will have virtually no effect on him.
I've read Buffett's editorial several times. I was well aware of how much tax he paid last year. Maybe I'm not being clear. Using your numbers, say Buffett's tax rate is increased so he pays $11.2 million per year in income tax. Buffet's probably making a lot more money now than he did 10 or 20 years ago and he's probably not going to live much longer. So I'm going to approximate the total amount he'll pay in income tax over his lifetime with the higher tax rate as 20 years x $11.2 million = $224 million. I just looked up the value of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway stock on Bloomberg. It's $37 billion. Supposedly he was worth $50 billion+ before he gave away part of his net worth to the Gate's foundation. Anyway, divide $224 million by $50 billion. You'll get 0.45%. Using the higher tax rate, Buffett may pay about 0.45% of what he managed to accumulate over his lifetime in income taxes. Again, that's 0.45% OVER HIS LIFETIME. Not what he'd pay in one year. Most people who make $1 million+ per year, including those who have significant capital gains and dividends, are going to pay A LOT more. At least 30% of what they accumulate. Some spendthrifts will pay total income taxes greater than what they're left with at the time they die. The ratio will be over 100%.
I have a friend. He paid about $4 million in taxes last year. The majority of his income was capital gains and dividends. He's worth about $120 million. He paid 58% of what Buffett paid in income tax. He's worth 0.3% of what Buffett's worth.
Buffett has a great deal going. Practically all his wealth is in Berkshire Hathaway stock. He's all in favor of raising the tax rate on dividends because Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay dividends. And he's all in favor of raising the tax rate on capital gains because he never sells Berkshire Hathaway stock. In other words, he's all in favor of sticking it to others in a way that won't affect him. This is typical of other wealthy Democrats. Like John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who pay nominal income tax on a billion dollar fortune because it's all in municipal bonds. Or attorneys who sue people, who do pay significant taxes but who depend on Democrat politicians to make after-tax megabucks. I have a couple of acquaintances in renewable energy -- they've done very well because of asinine policies that provide their projects with huge tax credits they can sell to companies that aren't even investing in their projects. They're Democrats.
In my previous posts, I gave examples of why Buffett is a self serving hypocrite, because his preferred tax policies help Berkshire Hathaway and him and hurt others.
[QUOTE=Esten; 419491]Tiny, read Buffett's article.
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html[/url]
This is all about [u]individual[/u] Taxes. Not corporate. Buffett said his 2010 federal tax bill was $6, 938, 744. He also said that was only 17. 4% of his taxable income. Making his taxable income about 40M.
Buffett doesn't think it's right that effective rates for wealthy people can be lower than what some in the middle class pay. To correct that he proposes to raise rates on taxable income in excess of $1 million. And that's what the 'Buffett Rule' does. It establishes a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year, to ensure they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers. If that rate is set at 28, Buffett's tax would increase from 6. 9M to 11. 2M. The rate could be higher. In fact, Buffett also wrote he would leave rates alone for the other 99. 7% of taxpayers (something I disagree with).
So his proposal is to raise taxes on people like him but not others. This is far from self serving hypocrisy. It is the complete opposite.[/QUOTE]Screw Buffet, Obama, Esten and anyone else pushing this BS. If you confiscate 100% of every millionaires wealth (not just this year's income) you would barely make a dent in the deficit. And next year? None of them would work and you'd get nothing else. So stop wasting your breath spouting off about something that makes absolutely no sense at all.
Look, everyone of you who voted for Obama, whatever the reason, knows what a unmitigated disaster he has been. Regardless of whether or not you still support him. As I said before he was even elected, he's a Marxist. There are only two ways Marxism gets a hold on a populace: lies and / or force. Most of his lies have been exposed, he has deliberately destroyed millions of citizen's lives through his zealotry and cares not if he ruins millions more. The lies haven't worked so the only way he stays in office is via force. Hopefully, that won't happen and we will have the 2012 elections without his interference and fraud.
A vast plurality (you heard me, PLURALITY) of Americans now despise this man and everything that he stands for. They might not want to tell the pollsters, but they sure as shit are going let it be known in the 2012 election. If you rule against the will of the American people, you'd better get some damn good results. In O'loser's case, those results are millions of more unemployed Americans and a double dip recession. With any luck, the losses handed to the liberals 13 months from now, will take generations to recover from.
I caught the tail end of an interview with Warren Buffet on 'In the Loop with Betty Liu' on Bloomberg television this morning. Betty is hot. Actually all the women on Bloomberg television are hot – much better than the worn out old hags on CNBC.
Anyway, there were three examples of Warren's hypocrisy.
1. Betty asked him about giving several billion dollars to the USA government. Warren said he'd do that if Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch would too. He mentioned Bloomberg because he's Betty's employer. He mentioned Murdoch because he knows there's a snowball's chance in hell Rupert would do that. Murdoch has about as much confidence in the USA government's ability to spend his money wisely as WW, Punter, Jackson, Doppelganger or Stan.
2. They discussed Berkshire Hathaway's stock buyback program. Why is Berkshire buying back stock instead of paying a dividend? Buffett in his writings from years back is clear on this. He prefers the buyback because shareholders have to pay tax on dividends. Buffet would have to pay a 15% tax on a dividend right now, and a 43.6% tax under the Obama / Buffett / Esten plan.
3. They discussed Berkshire's purchase of preferred stock from Bank of America. Why did Berkshire buy preferred stock instead of loaning BOA money? Because Berkshire pays a 10.5% federal tax rate on dividend income instead of a 35% tax on interest income. Please note that under the Obama / Buffett / Esten plan, if Buffett himself owned BOA preferred stock, he'd pay 43.6% tax on the income. But if Berkshire Hathaway owns the stock, the tax is 10.5%. Buffett wants to stick it to anyone who's stupid enough to own assets in his own name. It's fine though if you have legions of attorneys and accountants and some vehicle like an insurance company to help you avoid tax.
Walleye, [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]. People voted for him because Bush was a fascist asshole who destroyed our civil liberties, destroyed the economoy, and put the country in a shitload of debt. At leat Obama is not trying to get the country out of the problems we are facing by sucking the cock of Halliburton. [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]. Would you vote for the ***** who doesn't know where our country lies in the world? How about the guy who thinks education is for suckers and believes that only God could have created people? Then there's the Mormon, who believes that blacks are that color because they refused to bathe in god's lake. I've been readin your [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue] for years now, and I am sick and tired of your unimformed opinions. Go ahead and vote for the same policies that got us in this mess in the first place. It is insanity to believe that the same policies that got us in this mess will get us out.
[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was edited in accordance with the Forum's Zero Tolerance policy regarding reports containing any [u]personal attacks or derogatory comments[/u] directed towards another Forum Member or the Forum Membership in general.[/blue]
Ah, yes... a typical Obama supporter demonstrating the effects of years of drinking liberal kool-aid.
Observe the raw emotion, completely void of any provable statistics, references to journalistic resources, or even so much as a single sentence detailing the rational behind any of his statements.
Don't laugh too quickly gentlemen, this is what we face in the next election.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 419517]Ah, yes. A typical Obama supporter demonstrating the effects of years of drinking liberal kool-aid.
Observe the raw emotion, completely void of any provable statistics, references to journalistic resources, or even so much as a single sentence detailing the rational behind any of his statements.
Don't laugh too quickly gentlemen, this is what we face in the next election.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]-So you didn't seem to notice that under the Bush administration the government now has tha ability to wiretap phone calls and read emails without cause.
-You didn't notice the $8 Trillion in debt accumulated over his administration due largely to providing tax cuts without providing offsets in costs. And now you blame the dems for not cutting the costs when none of the Republicans had the balls to do it. However, now that you have partial control over the government, but not enough to actually do anything, you scream and cry like babies that it's the Dems that are against cuts, and you were for them all along. A nice bit of revisionist history I think.
- The Tea Party claims to be following the principles of Ayn Rand, but to a person they are all promoting a Christian agenda. If you think Sharia law is bad wait till you see Evangelical law. It is a fact that this is what Rick Perry is promoting.
I could address each point and provide you with facts, but you would just dismiss them because it didn't come from Fox News. And before you call me as another deluded liberal, I was a life long Republican until I saw what party has become. A bunch of clueless chickens who forget what they did five minutes ago and can do nothing but parrot Glen Beck and Hannity. A party that takes no responsibility for its actions. A party of overblown, hypocritical, moralists.