Ferdglob, Why are you trying to argue for lower government spending and social and civil liberties with Libertarians? They agree with you, although I imagine they're a lot more tolerant of other's religious beliefs than you are.
Printable View
Ferdglob, Why are you trying to argue for lower government spending and social and civil liberties with Libertarians? They agree with you, although I imagine they're a lot more tolerant of other's religious beliefs than you are.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;419520]Ferdglob, Why are you trying to argue for lower government spending and social and civil liberties with Libertarians? They agree with you, although I imagine they're a lot more tolerant of other's religious beliefs than you are.[/QUOTE]Why are you saying I'm intolerant? Because of my comment on Mormons? I guess that was out of line, especially since I did not give a context. I grew up in a Mormon town, and have read the book of Mormons. I'm just saying I could not imagine a President with that belief system. I am very tolerant of other's beliefs, as long as they do not try to force them on me or make them a part of my government.
As far as arguing with Liberterians, I see none that have weighed in on this debate. There is a big difference between Republicans, the Tea Party, and Libertarians. The Republicans and the Tea Party want nothing to do with Civil Liberties. In fact I would argue that with their "Social Conservatism" and their desire to mix church and state they are distinctly anti-libertarian.
[QUOTE=Ferdglob;419521]As far as arguing with Liberterians, I see none that have weighed in on this debate. There is a big difference between Republicans, the Tea Party, and Libertarians. The Republicans and the Tea Party want nothing to do with Civil Liberties. In fact I would argue that with their "Social Conservatism" and their desire to mix church and state they are distinctly anti-libertarian.[/QUOTE]Ferdglob, I think if you'd followed this thread longer your opinion might be different. Mongers are almost universally liberal on social issues. When it comes to social liberties, WW and Esten for example have more in common than you'd think.
The Republican party does have some people who are members of the party because they can't get elected on a Libertarian ticket. Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Jeff Flake come to mind. And the Republican party has a lot of politicians that think like Libertarians on economic issues. I can't think of anyone on the Democrat side of the aisle that comes close to being Libertarian on most issues. Maybe Dennis Kucinich on some issues, but on others he's out there.
About Obama. While I'm not sure exactly what the right approach or balance is to protecting civil liberties versus protecting against terrorism, I don't think anything has changed under Obama versus the way it was under Bush. I don't think foreign policy has changed much either. I do think he and a Democrat Congress made a much worse mess of the economy than Bush, and it pisses me off that he's playing the class warfare card.
About the Tea Party, if you look at the demographics they probably are more religious and socially conservative than the country on average. But I'd argue social issues have nothing to do with the Tea Party. The Tea Party supports lower taxes and lower government spending. If the majority of members are social conservatives, it's irrelevant to the aims of the group.
Tiny,
Buffett had a [u]40 MILLION[/u] taxable income last year. His effective tax rate was 17.4%. The only way it gets that low is through investments taxed at lower rates. His [u]ENTIRE 40 MILLION[/u] would be subject to the tax hike he proposes. He also suggested an additional rate increase for those who make $10 million or more, like him.
So your claim that his preferred tax policies help him is [u]BOGUS[/u].
BTW, Buffett has explained why Berkshire doesn't pay a dividend. Buffett's view is that a dollar re-invested back in the business returns more than a dollar that would have been paid out as a dividend. Buffett himself could receive close to 1 billion each year from a dividend. That's 1 billion that could be re-invested to benefit all shareholders. His philosophy is about growing Berkshire's wealth, not avoiding personal taxes.
Buffett has pledged his wealth (stock) to charity. The more the stock price rises the greater that charitable gift will be. He doesn't have to sell much of his stock now. Why should he? To prove something? He's still reporting a 40M income, on which he would pay several million more in taxes under his own proposal.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;419492]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.[/QUOTE]What on earth does that mean? Net worth here is a red herring.
The relevant question is, what was his effective tax rate? I bet it was under 20% too, just like Buffett.
Esten, that's my point. He has $40 million in personal, taxable income on a fortune of $40 billion plus. That's a return of 1/10th of 1% per annum. His fortune is structured so that it doesn't generate personal income. So, in comparison to the size of his net worth, he's going to pay virtually no personal income tax regardless of whether his personal tax rate is 17. 4% or 100%.
Berkshire Hathaway in recent years has generated single digit returns on equity and capital. The return to Berkshire shareholders over the last decade (being soley stock price appreciation since there are no dividends) has been 4% per year. If I were an investor in the stock, I'd want dividends. I'd take the dividends and reinvest in more profitable opportunities, instead of stock buybacks or railroads. This process, efficient allocation of capital, by the way, is important to creating a growing, efficient, productive economy, and it's hindered by a high tax on dividends.
Anyway, undoubtedly a big consideration of Buffet with respect to both dividends and his donations is to avoid tax. While he won't say it, he knows his capital is going to do more good in the world if it's allocated by the Gates Foundation instead of the USA government.
Buffett used to agree with me. Fifteen or twenty years ago he preferred a progressive consumption tax to income tax. The reason -- income tax on business income, capital gains and dividends inhibits investment. It's probably just coincidence, but twenty years ago he was a more successful investor than he is now.
There's no doubt Warren Buffett's secretary comment was false. But, does anyone else find it odd that our President could speechify and engage in class warfare with something like the "Buffett Rule" without even having said what the "Buffett Rule" is? Sure, he's characterized it as a rule where the rich won't pay less taxes than their secretaries. But, what does that really mean? Where's his plan? Where's his proposal? Like his second budget proposal earlier this year, it exists only in a speech. He hasn't bothered to articulate what it really means.
For his part, Buffett already is backpedaling. His version of the Buffett Rule would affect only a few thousand people, who he calls "the ultra rich." It is doubtful that this is what Obama eventually will propose, assuming he ever gets around to proposing anything. But, Buffett recently went on record as saying athletes making $45 million a year, or newscasters making multiple millions a year in salary, would face NO TAX INCREASE under his vision.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;419535]Anyway, undoubtedly a big consideration of Buffet with respect to both dividends and his donations is to avoid tax. While he won't say it, he knows his capital is going to do more good in the world if it's allocated by the Gates Foundation instead of the USA government.[/QUOTE]Buffett has already come out and said exactly that. When asked why he didn't just give his funds to the government rather than charity, he said he believes the Gates Foundation would allocate his funds more efficiently than the government. Taxes are for saps. In other words, it's okay if they take your money. As for Warren, however, he structures his investments such that they get as little as possible, advocates for increasing tax rates on others, but his money is better spent elsewhere. I can't argue with his tax strategy or the idea that the government doesn't efficiently tax and spend. And, that's the point. Buffett may lend his name to Democrats from time to time. But, when he has to put his money where his mouth is, he does not believe the government spends wisely.
Let me get this straight. If someone donates an appreciated asset to charity, but also supports higher personal taxes, that person is a hypocrite for not letting the government tax all their wealth?
These arguments trying to make Buffett look like a bad guy are silly and desperate. Buffett and Berkshire are two of the most respected names in business.... It's not worth debating these pointless arguments much further.
It is comical to look back at how persistent the slanderers were in attempting to paint Buffett and Obama as liars:
[QUOTE]
Doppelganger / Stan Da Man:
"I just can't wait to see you try to turn this one around as Obama purportedly tries to save the middle class from the evil rich with an outright lie."
"He's relying on a lie, told by Warren Buffett, that his secretary paid a higher rate of tax than Buffett."
"Buffett, of course, is lying."
"PolitiFact = PolitiCrap and so does your argument. Buffett and Obama's argument is a lie start to finish."
"Obama's 'Buffett Rule' is a lie, he knows it, you know it and so do most folks with a wit of intelligence. "
"There has been some excellent pushback exposing Obama's and Buffett's lies about taxes."
"HERE IS THE PROOF BUFFETT IS LYING!"
"So Buffett's claim his secretary paid 30% is a bald face LIE."
""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]"
[/QUOTE]
First they cited IRS tax tables to show Buffett's low tax rate wasn't possible. But they forgot about tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Then they cited the tables again to show his secretary's high rate wasn't possible. But they overlooked other compensation she might have plausibly received, supported by statements from a Wall Street compensation expert.
They could have just said Buffett's case isn't representative, or his secretary's case isn't representative. And then there would have been no argument. Even though this is just one example of a broader point Buffett and Obama are making.
But they dug in their heels and insisted it was a lie. Since they still have no evidence, and there are plausible explanations for Buffett's statement, the respectable thing would be for them to withdraw their accusation.
Will they ever admit they were wrong? Unlikely.
[QUOTE=Esten;419546]Let me get this straight. If someone donates an appreciated asset to charity, but also supports higher personal taxes, that person is a hypocrite for not letting the government tax all their wealth?[/QUOTE]Esten,
O. K, it looks like we agree again. Yes, under policies preferred by Obama and Buffett, the government would indeed tax away the majority or even all the wealth of those making over $1 million per year, unless they donate a lot to charity. But, to your other point, no Esten, the reason he's a hypocrite is because
(a) over the course of his lifetime he's going to end up paying total personal income taxes and estate taxes that may add up to less than 1% of the net worth he accumulates or gives away AND
(b) he promotes policies that would require most Americans making over $1 million per year to pay total personal income and estate taxes that will amount from 60% to over 100% of what they will manage to accumulate or give away over their lifetimes (e. g, estate tax rate of 55%; income tax rate of 43. 6%; double taxation of corporate income and dividends / capital gains) , AND
he says he's in the same boat as the people in "b" above, who would incidentally be taxed to death under the Buffett plan, when he's really in group "a".
As I've written here before, you and Buffett are adding her payments towards her social security and medicare to the secretary's income tax to come up with her tax rate. Doppelganger and Stan are not. And Doppelganger and Stan may be including in Buffett's income tax rate the corporate income taxes he indirectly paid by virtue of his ownership of Berkshire Hathaway.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 419548]Esten,
O. K, it looks like we agree again. Yes, under policies preferred by Obama and Buffett, the government would indeed tax away the majority or even all the wealth of those making over $1 million per year, unless they donate a lot to charity. But, to your other point, no Esten, the reason he's a hypocrite is because.
(a) over the course of his lifetime he's going to end up paying total personal income taxes and estate taxes that may add up to less than 1% of the net worth he accumulates or gives away AND.
(be) he promotes policies that would require most Americans making over $1 million per year to pay total personal income and estate taxes that will amount from 60% to over 100% of what they will manage to accumulate or give away over their lifetimes (e. G, estate tax rate of 55%; income tax rate of 43. 6%; double taxation of corporate income and dividends / capital gains) , AND.
He says he's in the same boat as the people in "be" above, who would incidentally be taxed to death under the Buffett plan, when he's really in group "a".
As I've written here before, you and Buffett are adding her payments towards her social security and medicare to the secretary's income tax to come up with her tax rate. Doppelganger and Stan are not. And Doppelganger and Stan may be including in Buffett's income tax rate the corporate income taxes he indirectly paid by virtue of his ownership of Berkshire Hathaway.[/QUOTE]To all my friends on this forum :
THIS is about getting LAID in BA!
Not about butt-fucking Obama or Romney or Palin, etc!
Come on boys!
There are many forums to discuss US policy and general BS!
This is my Rifle and this is my Gun!
This one's for Fighting and this one's for FUN!
Let's ALL get Laid!
Put this shit on the back burner or pm each other if you have a discrepancy!
The Boys on this board pay a lot of money and suffer numerous hours on shitty airlines to come down here and get laid!
NOTHING ELSE!
They want to forget about the USA!
It's called a fucking vacation dudes!
I Love all of you but let's trade secrects, chicas, prices and service!
TL
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre; 419549]To all my friends on this forum :
THIS is about getting LAID in BA![/QUOTE]TL.... Man cannot live by pussy alone!
Especially for those of us stuck in Sex Prison most of the year!
The mind must have its distractions.
For whatever reason, some of us BA fans have found this board a place to hang out. But face it, this board is not very active in terms of chica info / reviews. So these more active Chit Chat threads move to the top of the thread list. I agree that can be a nuisance for those wanting to focus on chicas.
That's why I suggested to Jackson a long time ago to move the Chit Chat section to the bottom of the board / screen. So the first list of threads you see would always be about chicas and BA. You'd have to purposely scroll down to see the Chit Chat threads. Not sure how easy that is with vBulletin but it's worth a try. Ultimately it's Jackson's call if / where he allows the Chit Chat threads.
One more post TL, then I'll take a little break..... but there is a very interesting video I'd like to share (no chicas though).
DUDES! Chill the f*ck out please! If ya don't like the thread THEN DON'T READ IT! Simple as that. Nobody loves the pussy reports better than me BUT free speech fellas. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. Still waiting for you to take me up on my bet Esten. Time for you to take it like a man. Jajajajaja
Pps. tonight is a first for the Toymann. In about an hour I plan to get in the middle of my #1, #2 and #3 chicas all at the same time. And TL thinks he is the chica king of BA. LOL. No drops involved baby! If you don't here from me any more assume I didn't make it fellas. Unlikely but certainly possible! LOL. Now hows that you a chica post TL? #1 is a muy flaca tiny morocha. #2 is an alta morocha chakena and #3 is a nonpro best buddy of #1, also a morocha. Morocha madness taken to next level. Wish me luck fellas! You can nominate me to the monger Hall of Fame anytime TL. When I am gone speak of me well baby!
[QUOTE=Toymann;419556]Ps. Still waiting for you take me up on my bet Esten. Time for you to take it like a man. Jajajajaja[/QUOTE]I'm still too chicken. Christie's out. Perry fizzled. It could be your Mormon boy after all. Or maybe Sarah Palin will jump in and save the day.
TL, on second thought, maybe you should take a break from all the pussy and join in the discussion. Come'on man! What's your view on Social Security?
I'll take a little break after this. But check this video out:
[url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/ronald-reagan-warren-buffet-rule-president-obama.html[/url]
In a 1985 speech, Reagan complained about tax loopholes for the wealthy. Because it was given at a high school, Reagan compared a millionaire to a bus driver, rather than a secretary.
"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," Reagan said.
After explaining how loopholes allow millionaires to pay less tax, Reagan asks the crowd, "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?" The crowd roared "More!" in response, causing Reagan to smile.
Esten, what is the Buffett Rule exactly? Nothing on paper, no offer, no details, just another speech by Obama which is looking a lot like his last debt reduction proposal, which if memory serves the CBO said they don't score speeches. Come on Esten, since you seem to have the inside track with Obama give us the DETAILS!
Didn't we already do this one with the AMT, Alternative Minimum Tax?
Now Harry Reid is talking up a new surtax on 'millionaires' which in Obama's book means a married couple filing a joint return with income over $250K.
Between Obama's drive for 'social justice' and 'redistribution' he is even losing the support of his own party. Reid's surtax scheme is just a way to try and hold the Democrats together since Obama's jobs bill would not even pass the Democratic controlled Senate as it is now written, much less the House.
2012 is coming Esten (hear the theme from Jaws playing in the background)
I heard that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times.
[QUOTE=Esten; 419559]I'll take a little break after this. But check this video out:
[url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/ronald-reagan-warren-buffet-rule-president-obama.html[/url]
In a 1985 speech, Reagan complained about tax loopholes for the wealthy. Because it was given at a high school, Reagan compared a millionaire to a bus driver, rather than a secretary.
"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," Reagan said.
After explaining how loopholes allow millionaires to pay less tax, Reagan asks the crowd,"Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?" The crowd roared "More!" in response, causing Reagan to smile.[/QUOTE]