[QUOTE=Doppelganger;419462]Esten is just trying to jerk our chain. We already smoked him.[/QUOTE]Exactly.
Jackson
Printable View
[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.
[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.
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]
[QUOTE=Esten;419559]"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.[/QUOTE]I agree, and among the many "loopholes" that should be eliminated are the mortgage interest deduction "loophole", the child credit "loophole", the married vs single filers "loophole", and the earned income credit "loophole".
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 419564]I agree, and among the many "loopholes" that should be eliminated are the mortgage interest deduction "loophole", the child credit "loophole", the married vs single filers "loophole", and the earned income credit "loophole".
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]But, the comments made by Reagan back then were about a completely different tax code, one that doesn't exist today in any way, shape or form. Liberals like to point out that, historically, tax rates have been much higher than today. But, that's like comparing today's tax system with a flat tax system in place in another country, and saying that the USA has much higher tax rates than the country with the flat tax system. It's apples and oranges.
Back when Reagan made his comments, tax shelters were quite common. The tax laws were set up to encourage them. They were eliminated with the '86 tax act. This, ultimately, led to the S & L crisis. Anyone who was in one of these tax shelters at the time can tell you how that worked. Real estate ventures that were set up to take advantage of the tax laws, without regard for profitability, suddenly lost their tax-preferred status and had to be economically profitable to make sense as an investment. As a consequence, commercial real estate like apartment buildings and shopping centers, lost half their value overnight. Poof!
Using Reagan's comments about an old tax code makes little sense. The "loopholes" that exist today are nothing compared to what existed back then. And, if Obama wanted to go that route, he had a golden opportunity. His Deficit Reduction Panel made a number of significant recommendations in these areas and Obama promptly ignored them all.
He is only interested in tax reform if it serves his class warfare rhetoric. He's never outlined what his so-called Buffett Rule means. He just wants to hide behind that rhetoric. Today, we see that Harry Reid is proposing his own Buffett-Rule, and his version already has been criticized by Buffett, who said he would not support it.
Obama's been on the campaign trail chanting "Pass this Bill" and stating that he wants an up or down vote on his supposed Jobs bill immediately. But, he can't convince his own party. So, McConnell tries to get it floored for a vote because everyone knows it won't pass, and it gets shot down by Reid. Obama has said he wants his bill passed unamended. Now, Reid's amending it. And, now Obama's saying he doesn't want a vote right away. Rather, it should be debated. More of the same from Obama. 13 months left until he's shown the door.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;419562]I heard that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times.[/QUOTE]Hey Stan,
I believe you intended to utilize this quote from WorldTravel69, not mine.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 419569]Hey Stan,
I believe you intended to utilize this quote from WorldTravel69, not mine.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Yes. My bad. Always look before you click.
As far as I can tell the world is awash with cash. Individuals and corporations have more cash sitting around than ever before.
The question is, where to put it? This will probably keep the stock market from crashing because some of it will end up there.
The only entity that cannot manage its finances are governments. Not surprising since governments are really cancers, indifferent to the health of the host and in fact, intent on killing the host.
And people like Esten/Obama want to feed this cancer.