Buffett's Company Has Not Paid Taxes Owed In Years

[red states rule]

So much for the left's latest hero. Seems the same guy who feels he is undertaxed and wants EVERYONE to pay more in taxes owes the government back taxes himself

The liberal media, of course, is ignoring this story as they always do when a liberal is busted for not "paying his/her fair share" in taxes






This one’s truly, uh ... rich: Billionaire Warren Buffett says folks like him should have to pay more taxes -- but it turns out his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, hasn’t paid what it’s already owed for years.

That’s right: As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.
“We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years ... within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says.


It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.

Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?
Likely answer: He cares more about shilling for President Obama -- who’s practically made socking “millionaires and billionaires” his re-election theme song -- than about kicking in more himself.

Buffett’s free to back Obama, of course.

And if his firm wants to keep its tax bill low, well, that’s its right, too.

But it would be nice if this “pro-tax-hike” tycoon were a bit more honest about it.

Start, for example, with his grossly disingenuous recent claim that, as he wrote in The New York Times, he paid only 17 percent of his income last year to the government -- even as many working stiffs who make far less than him coughed up higher percentages.

Fact is, unlike most other folks, Warren Buffett gets most of his income from dividends and capital gains, which are nominally taxed at 15 percent.

Left unsaid is that much of that is taxed at 35 percent (via the corporate income tax) before he even gets his hands on it. So in effect, he’s paying taxes twice (that is, when his companies actually pay, anyway).


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ#ix zz1WVTo0o2h

[ConHog]

LOL Did this jackass really think no one would investigate this when he started spouting off.

Hell, the government can tax me at 90% if I don't ever actually have to pay.

[logroller]

LOL Did this jackass really think no one would investigate this when he started spouting off.

Hell, the government can tax me at 90% if I don't ever actually have to pay.

Wasn't much of an investigation, they looked at a company report to shareholders. He's been critical of the 2003 tax cuts since their inception,specifically for the same reasons he spoke a few weeks ago--increasingly lower corporate tax rates. You think maybe, just maybe, there's a bit more going on here than tax liability? I'd suggest people do a little more research into why Buffet, the 2nd richest man in America, would speak out against a tax policy which he himself has benefited from. Hint: it has to do with the growth-centered investment and not wind-fall speculation. The reason those taxes haven't been finalized have more to do with politics than tax assessment. Here's a clip from the '03 letter to shareholders, the emphasis is mine.



Taxes
On May 20, 2003, The Washington Post ran an op-ed piece by me that was critical of the Bush tax
proposals. Thirteen days later, Pamela Olson, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Treasury,
delivered a speech about the new tax legislation saying, “That means a certain midwestern oracle, who, it
must be noted, has played the tax code like a fiddle, is still safe retaining all his earnings.” I think she was
talking about me.
Alas, my “fiddle playing” will not get me to Carnegie Hall – or even to a high school recital.
Berkshire, on your behalf and mine, will send the Treasury $3.3 billion for tax on its 2003 income, a sum
equaling 2½% of the total income tax paid by all U.S. corporations in fiscal 2003. (In contrast, Berkshire’s
market valuation is about 1% of the value of all American corporations.) Our payment will almost7
certainly place us among our country’s top ten taxpayers. Indeed, if only 540 taxpayers paid the amount
Berkshire will pay, no other individual or corporation would have to pay anything to Uncle Sam. That’s
right: 290 million Americans and all other businesses would not have to pay a dime in income, social
security, excise or estate taxes to the federal government. (Here’s the math: Federal tax receipts, including
social security receipts, in fiscal 2003 totaled $1.782 trillion and 540 “Berkshires,” each paying $3.3
billion, would deliver the same $1.782 trillion.)
Our federal tax return for 2002 (2003 is not finalized), when we paid $1.75 billion, covered a mere
8,905 pages. As is required, we dutifully filed two copies of this return, creating a pile of paper seven feet
tall. At World Headquarters, our small band of 158, though exhausted, momentarily flushed with pride:
Berkshire, we felt, was surely pulling its share of our country’s fiscal load.
But Ms. Olson sees things otherwise. And if that means Charlie and I need to try harder, we are
ready to do so.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
I can understand why the Treasury is now frustrated with Corporate America and prone to
outbursts. But it should look to Congress and the Administration for redress, not to Berkshire.
Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a
post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded
since data was first published in 1934.
Even so, tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part
of the Administration’s 2002 and 2003 initiatives. If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is
clearly winning. Today, many large corporations – run by CEOs whose fiddle-playing talents make your
Chairman look like he is all thumbs – pay nothing close to the stated federal tax rate of 35%.
In 1985, Berkshire paid $132 million in federal income taxes, and all corporations paid $61
billion. The comparable amounts in 1995 were $286 million and $157 billion respectively. And, as
mentioned, we will pay about $3.3 billion for 2003, a year when all corporations paid $132 billion. We
hope our taxes continue to rise in the future – it will mean we are prospering – but we also hope that the
rest of Corporate America antes up along with us. This might be a project for Ms. Olson to work onhttp://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2003ltr.pdf

[fj1200]

He's been critical of the 2003 tax cuts since their inception,specifically for the same reasons he spoke a few weeks ago--increasingly lower corporate tax rates. ... Hint: it has to do with the growth-centered investment and not wind-fall speculation.

:confused: Corporate rates are pretty much unchanged since '86.

What are his ideas on "growth-centered investment"?

[logroller]

:confused: Corporate rates are pretty much unchanged since '86.

What are his ideas on "growth-centered investment"?

Rates may remain constant, while associated loopholes, er I mean tax modifications, can cause the effective rate to differ. Two things primarily affect what I'll discuss here. Depreciation of assets, like machinery: depreciation rates have traditionally been lowered along with the corp tax rate; resulting in a depr. rate often below that of inflation-- a disincentive for asset investment, retarding growth within those industries heavily vested in those assets and therefore-- discouraging investment in American industries. The other is the method of financing. Under equity-based financing one can expense, or fully depreciate an asset in one year; which overwhelmingly favors those industries with little long-term depreciation interests (like financial services) more than theindustries reliant on non-liquid assets, ie manufacturing. When combined, these two combine to decrease American industrial investment as well as Our long-term stability and growth.

Eventually the bubble pops, while financial services are subject to the lowered tax rates, effectively lower; despite the GDP/ generated tax revenues ratio appears relatively unchanged-- the primary growth has been in the volume of money, fiat growth, if you will! You see the signs quite clearly in how much money businesses have been holding in cash reserves.This is the bubble of economic activity, which collapses quickly relative to longer term (10-20yr) investment strategies which Berkshire Hathaway practices. How many people who lost their homes did so b/c they'd fell victim to lure of windfall profits and sub-prime rates? And how many jobs were lost as a result, more than were created I'd bet. TARP funds unspent, back to work stimulus programs lining the very pockets of those who've already benefited from these failed policies; while government covers those put out. While corporate america's insistence is far from surprising...lower corporate tax rates.:lame2: Is it any wonder our debt is climbing,

[fj1200]

Eventually the bubble pops... Is it any wonder our debt is climbing,

I didn't hear WB bring all of that up when he asked for higher tax rates. But I'm certainly not going to argue that our corporate taxation system is anywhere close to rational but it really has nothing to do with bubbles and our debt.

[KartRacerBoy]

Goddamn it! I always knew Jimmy Buffet was a scoundrel! No more Margarittas for me!

[gabosaurus]

Goddamn it! I always knew Jimmy Buffet was a scoundrel! No more Margarittas for me!

Damn Parrotheads! You can't trust 'em! :laugh:

Otherwise, how did Warren Buffett become a liberal hero?

[logroller]

I didn't hear WB bring all of that up when he asked for higher tax rates. But I'm certainly not going to argue that our corporate taxation system is anywhere close to rational but it really has nothing to do with bubbles and our debt.

"Generalizations are always false, including this one"-mark twain

It's probably too complex for most mainstream news outlets. It's out there, but you gotta read through pages of CBO docs and thesis level analyses to make heads or tails of it. Though, in some of the same sources which spawned the tax issues of the OP, he does talk about corporate america, especially the major players,(top quintile) paying disproportionate taxes to their stated incomes; as well as discussing the many accounting techniques used to suppress earnings subject to taxation. Can you deny (just stop me when you disagree) there are sectors of the market who enjoy favorable tax policies? and thanks in part to those policies, they handle more money? that those who handle more money, have a greater impact on market behavior? And when the market crashes, jobs are lost? and those job losses increase social welfare claims? those claims increase the public burden? and without tax revenues increasing, that burden mounts into debt?

I mean, throw me bone here FJ-- I'm not promoting some massive looting of our financial centers, just stopping their looting of us. (Though fightclub had a decent premise..oops violated the first rule.)

You see the problem is nobody wants to admit we have a system which tramples on the individual pursuit of happiness. Everybody seems doped up on this image of the magical pie bakers at the NYSE and Washington DC, whose promises for prosperity are conveyed as extrinsic expressions of wealth, mansions, fancy phones and over-sized cars. Speak out against that system and expect hell to pay. They'll tie you up in so much shit you'll wish you'd just sold your soul to JT. Then when the gigs up, we get this buffoon in here now, whose policies aren't too far off the actual reality, we just don't want to believe it. Mandated healthcare, not the role of govt, but neither is getting your pockets fat from big pharma deals, but that sure as hell went through; so now Obama's like-- fuck it, spend it all-- tax it back--drive this country over the edge, it's not like anybody's gonna do anything but raise our interest rates. :wankwank:That's pretty much how the financial system became system became distraught, make 'em a deal too good to be true, once they bite, they're hooked, dependent on the system-- so much easier to lead about while you take it all back..and then some. Hell the morons who supposedly were too big, too vital..whatever, they weren't and they should of failed---BUT NO they dug themselves into a multi-trillion dollar hole and we couldn't even let them hang themselves. Why?, because God-forbid we let the market behave rationally, that would require the government to do so as well; and far too few people benefit immensely from the irrational behavior of both.

Phew. I need a smoke. Yo DMP, spark one up..

[red states rule]

LOL Did this jackass really think no one would investigate this when he started spouting off.

Hell, the government can tax me at 90% if I don't ever actually have to pay.

He knew the liberal media would ignore this story - and they are

[red states rule]

Otherwise, how did Warren Buffett become a liberal hero?

The moment he opposed something Pres Bush supported

[logroller]

He knew the liberal media would ignore this story - and they are

That's just it, it's a story--and a fantastic one at that. I'll bet it was the talk about water cooler. Sure beats out how drunk Luna Tick got last weekend. But that doesn't dispute the facts of matter, which are plain to see if you don't get spun off by pundit conjecture. The market failure was both caused and expedited by tax policy which favored the turnover, or liquidation, of assets-- whose chief benefactors and proponents were the super-rich. Tell me red, who do you know that got rich and stayed rich? I'm not talking about a little bit, but millions made and retained? Ask 'em what their effective tax rate was for the term; I'll guarantee they'll be hesitant to tell you, cause it's less than your's was.

[red states rule]

That's just it, it's a story--and a fantastic one at that. I'll bet it was the talk about water cooler. Sure beats out how drunk Luna Tick got last weekend. But that doesn't dispute the facts of matter, which are plain to see if you don't get spun off by pundit conjecture. The market failure was both caused and expedited by tax policy which favored the turnover, or liquidation, of assets-- whose chief benefactors and proponents were the super-rich. Tell me red, who do you know that got rich and stayed rich? I'm not talking about a little bit, but millions made and retained? Ask 'em what their effective tax rate was for the term; I'll guarantee they'll be hesitant to tell you, cause it's less than your's was.


So you are fooled by the "effective tax rate" crap as well eh? Buffett makes most of his money via captial gains so a income tax rate would not effect him much. If Warren feels he is undertaxed he could have sent $500 billion to the US government instead of BOA

The fact is, the so called "rich" are a shrinking number in this Obama economy, yet they continue to pay a huge majority of the taxes collected. You could tax them at a rate of 100% and still not cover one year of Obama debt

The reason this is being ignored by the liberal media is because once again we have a liberal calling for others to pay more in taxes while not paying his own taxes. Much like Charlie Rangel, Tim Geithner, John Kerry. and Tom Daschel

It is cleaqr why Dems are always demanding higher taxes - they do not intend to pay them so they don't care

[logroller]

So you are fooled by the "effective tax rate" crap as well eh? Buffett makes most of his money via captial gains so a income tax rate would not effect him much. If Warren feels he is undertaxed he could have sent $500 billion to the US government instead of BOA

The fact is, the so called "rich" are a shrinking number in this Obama economy, yet they continue to pay a huge majority of the taxes collected. You could tax them at a rate of 100% and still not cover one year of Obama debt

The reason this is being ignored by the liberal media is because once again we have a liberal calling for others to pay more in taxes while not paying his own taxes. Much like Charlie Rangel, Tim Geithner, John Kerry. and Tom Daschel

It is cleaqr why Dems are always demanding higher taxes - they do not intend to pay them so they don't care

We're talking corporate taxes, not income and cap gains. The top individual earners don't hold a candle to the corporate world. Send it to the govt???:laugh: Why would they do that, they can send far less to the politicians and get more for the money. Things like tax loopholes are probably net 10000%+ return rate for those who lobby for them. Good for investors no doubt, but good for America? How bout we set up a poll on that.

As for the rich, sure they're wealth and income is shrinking, as is everybody's; never said they weren't, but they're wealth isn't shrinking as much as everybody else's, nor do they pay as much taxes AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME-- that's the effective rate. People lost wealth in 01/02, then came along bush tax cuts, and everybody was happy spending all their new found wealth. Where's that wealth now, when people need it? Call me a fool all you want; I fell into the get-rich quick incentives the bush tax cuts provided-- that's what Buffett's pissed about, get rich quick isn't sustainable-- He said that then, they audited him for it. He said it again, they say he's behind on his taxes. You familiar political leverage and racketeering red?

The reason its being "ignored" by the liberal media is it doesn't interest their audience, who really just want to hear about who's sleepin with who and how someone else will fix their problems--you know hopey changey stuff. Whereas a multi-billion$ corporation fighting with the government over tax policy--BORING. All those guys you mentioned certainly have some so-called "rich people" backing them, I'll call them upper quartiles, or specify 90%ers, 1%ers (the "super rich"), and the much maligned .01%ers the "megarich"--just to clear up any confusion as to what I mean.

And I'm not quite sure what you mean by, so-called, higher taxes, you always want it to be about that, like a magic 8ball of propaganda. You're right though, I do want higher taxes, for everybody. You've outed me red; I might as well come clean about my plan where everybody pays more taxes. It's a pretty elaborate scheme that no respectable conservative media will want to report on, but what I'll do is this. Now pay attn, it's pretty ingenious.

Introduce a policy which makes everybody pay taxes on what they earn, a progressive system ranging from 15- 35%. Then, make everybody actually pay what their supposed to pay according to said rates. Then, when all the people have the same opportunities as the next, and through the miracle of free-market capitalism--people will make more money--and then the crescendo of my plan...
People pay more tax, because they make more money. :dev:

...and I would have gotten away with too...had it not been for those meddlesome do-gooders on Wall Street and Capital Hill.

[red states rule]

Look who is paying the taxes right now

http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg




These numbers are from the IRS so they should know who is paying the money.

I am surprised you don't understand corporations do not pay taxes - their customers do. IOW we do

Obama has had his tax increases LR. In Obamacare and in other bills pased by the Dems

and on Jan 1, 2012 the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and we will have yet another massive tax increase that will further harm the Obama economy

[fj1200]

"Generalizations are always false, including this one"-mark twain

It's probably too complex for most mainstream news outlets. It's out there, but you gotta read through pages of CBO docs and thesis level analyses to make heads or tails of it. Though, in some of the same sources which spawned the tax issues of the OP, he does talk about corporate america, especially the major players,(top quintile) paying disproportionate taxes to their stated incomes; as well as discussing the many accounting techniques used to suppress earnings subject to taxation. Can you deny (just stop me when you disagree) there are sectors of the market who enjoy favorable tax policies? and thanks in part to those policies, they handle more money? that those who handle more money, have a greater impact on market behavior? And when the market...

Phew. I need a smoke. Yo DMP, spark one up..

I think I let you go a little long up there... but you finished strong. :laugh:

I'm not even sure where to start with the rest of your rant post so I'll just sit back and... :420:

[logroller]

I think I let you go a little long up there... but you finished strong. :laugh:

I'm not even sure where to start with the rest of your rant post so I'll just sit back and... :420:

Stopped me too soon, but ignorance is blissful...enjoy.:420:

[fj1200]

Stopped me too soon, but ignorance is blissful...enjoy.:420:

I know too much truth to be blissful.

[logroller]

I know too much truth to be blissful.
We could just go back and forth like this; seeing if we can't create the weakest cage match EVA..... or Agree to disagree?:thumb:

[fj1200]

We could just go back and forth like this; seeing if we can't create the weakest cage match EVA..... or Agree to disagree?:thumb:

That's just it, we don't disagree on much except your insistence on tying just about every government malfeasance into the great crash. A crash will occur primarily when the rules change and government rules didn't really change, except MTM which isn't government per se, so there was nothing to cause a crash outside of Federal Reserve failure. Did you read Jonathan Taylor's piece I linked to in Kathianne's SEC thread? Favoring one sector over another may cause abnormal growth in that sector but a crash would only occur if that favor was suddenly stripped away. You could certainly argue that where Bear Stearns was NOT saved, after Lehman was, was a major shock to the system because the Fed changed previous Fed doctrine but that would reinforce my point.

Besides until the others refer to us as j.t. and CH I'm not to concerned.

You're j.t. btw. ;)

[KartRacerBoy]

I know too much truth to be blissful.

:laugh:

You do not know as much as I do sir. :poke:

[fj1200]

:laugh:

You do not know as much as I do sir. :poke:

Possibly, but what I know is correct. However, I gladly cede to you superior knowledge in hair care products and artistic supplies for the phalangeal appendages.

[KartRacerBoy]

Possibly, but what I know is correct. However, I gladly cede to you superior knowledge in hair care products and artistic supplies for the phalangeal appendages.


:laugh:

You are still a jealous bitch. Next time up, my daughter WILL paint your toenails, sir. :beer:

[fj1200]

:laugh:

You are still a jealous bitch. Next time up, my daughter WILL paint your toenails, sir. :beer:

Glad you can chuckle at your shortcomings. I am jealous of your car and I noticed that a lesbian couple at church were driving a similar model. I'll have to tell them to let me know if they're looking to sell, the wife's car is getting up there in miles.

[logroller]

That's just it, we don't disagree on much except your insistence on tying just about every government malfeasance into the great crash. A crash will occur primarily when the rules change and government rules didn't really change, except MTM which isn't government per se, so there was nothing to cause a crash outside of Federal Reserve failure. Did you read Jonathan Taylor's piece I linked to in Kathianne's SEC thread? Favoring one sector over another may cause abnormal growth in that sector but a crash would only occur if that favor was suddenly stripped away. You could certainly argue that where Bear Stearns was NOT saved, after Lehman was, was a major shock to the system because the Fed changed previous Fed doctrine but that would reinforce my point.

Besides until the others refer to us as j.t. and CH I'm not to concerned.

You're j.t. btw. ;)

there is no god.

certainly the foremost cause of the crash was sub-prime rates, Fed reserve~but isn't that the government???


You ever done one those reading tests where words are omitted or duplicated, but you subconsciously correct it..Well, at first read my mind interpreted your post as the following.


Glad you can chuckle at your shortcomings. I am jealous and I noticed a lesbian couple ... I'll tell them if they're looking ... the wife's getting up there in miles.

I reread it, correctly. You gotta get a few thousand miles to get your money's worth out of the new tires.

[fj1200]

there is no god.

certainly the foremost cause of the crash was sub-prime rates, Fed reserve~but isn't that the government???

Quasi, which means you agree with my posit. Did you notice that I didn't leave them out? You need to look beyond sub-prime.

[logroller]

Quasi, which means you agree with my posit. Did you notice that I didn't leave them out? You need to look beyond sub-prime.
You mean things like tax benefits that encouraged fast, yet unsustainable, growth?

I understand that short-term interests are important, as are long-term one's. Traditionally, and I think this makes sense both logically and ethically, those with the highest gains during booms, would experience the greatest losses (by %) during busts. Which isn't the case in the latest bust, Why?

I can certainly accept those with billions probably know more about maximizing profits from investment than those with less; as those with more profits likely reinvest, it would seem logical they would enjoy a greater advantage from a policy which is intended to encourage investment. Along with sub-prime and a variety of other things, I believe the tax policies of 2003 encouraged, for too long a term, the corporate investment into short-term gains. Having accepting that investors with billions more to invest play a greater role in market capitalization, they have, consequently, benefited more greatly than others-- I have no problem with this on its face-value, as greater market strength provides a public good. Arguably the most important strategy utilized by those who've the most to invest, having weathered many an economic storm, is diversification. Where I take issue, and perhaps this is where you and I disagree, is that opine the diversification of the market involves not only diverse holdings, but a diversity of investors. Despite the high likelihood of lesser growth, a greater diversity of investors, having broader interests, provide for a broader delivery of public good through private investment-- thereby reducing the public dependence upon social welfare payments and government, et all. I claim no ignorance of the fact this method is NOT in the interest of big government or big business, but rather the other 99% of society; therefore the 1% oppose this with all their money and the power it provides them.

[red states rule]

Wpuld it be asking too much for Buffett to cut $1 billion from his $5 billlion investment of BOA and PAY HIS DAMN TAX?

[fj1200]

You mean things like tax benefits that encouraged fast, yet unsustainable, growth?

:rolleyes: You keep saying that like those words belong together.


I understand that short-term interests are important, as are long-term one's. Traditionally, and I think this makes sense both logically and ethically, those with the highest gains during booms, would experience the greatest losses (by %) during busts. Which isn't the case in the latest bust, Why?

Probably because the average individual investor is not smart, they get in after things are rolling and they get out after things have already cratered not waiting for the rebound.


... Where I take issue, and perhaps this is where you and I disagree, is that opine the diversification of the market involves not only diverse holdings, but a diversity of investors. Despite the high likelihood of lesser growth, a greater diversity of investors, having broader interests, provide for a broader delivery of public good through private investment-- thereby reducing the public dependence upon social welfare payments and government, et all. I claim no ignorance of the fact this method is NOT in the interest of big government or big business, but rather the other 99% of society; therefore the 1% oppose this with all their money and the power it provides them.

I don't disagree with your ideal I disagree that you think it really matters in the end. I wish Social Security didn't encourage the opposite of the ideal but it in fact does. I wonder if you calculated the average employees SS payments as a lump sum and added that as an asset what the numbers would look like. SS distorts behavior and those who decry wealth distribution don't address SS effects.

[red states rule]

It is clear why liberals always want to raise taxes - they have have no intention of paying them so they don;t care

[logroller]

Wpuld it be asking too much for Buffett to cut $1 billion from his $5 billlion investment of BOA and PAY HIS DAMN TAX?

He's already has so much money he's compelled to give it away. So his outstanding tax issue has nothing to do with his ability to pay, but rather his unwillingness to cooperate with the IRS. Why do you think that is? What's his motivation?

[red states rule]

He's already has so much money he's compelled to give it away. So his outstanding tax issue has nothing to do with his ability to pay, but rather his unwillingness to cooperate with the IRS. Why do you think that is? What's his motivation?

His motivation is easy to see

He is a puppet for Obama and the left who want to punish success.

Raising income tax rates will have little impact on Buffett since most of his income if from capital gains.

Like the 50% of taxpayers who get a free ride and pay zero income taxes, he does not care if OTHERS have to pay more - only that he does not have to

[logroller]

His motivation is easy to see

He is a puppet for Obama and the left who want to punish success.

Raising income tax rates will have little impact on Buffett since most of his income if from capital gains.

Like the 50% of taxpayers who get a free ride and pay zero income taxes, he does not care if OTHERS have to pay more - only that he does not have to


Reason fails to support your assertion.I highly doubt a person, who builds a business to the level he has, is a puppet to anyone. Besides the fact this is an issue over a corporate income tax, not him personally; he's not proposing raising the taxes, he's said all along the issue isn't the rate, it's the loopholes which allow income to go unrealized allowing for better investment opportunity. As for the 50% who don't pay taxes, any guesses why---here's a clue, they don't make enough money-- if they did--they'd pay tax. What Buffet is saying is the top enjoy so many breaks they experience less limitation from making more and more money. Sure they pay more tax as a result, but not proportionate to their income, cap gains whatever--that's left to the upper-third and fourth quartiles. It runs against what he believes is healthy for market-based society; and I agree.

If paying taxes is such a detractor from investment, how do the top earners continually build wealth while paying so much tax?

[logroller]

:rolleyes: You keep saying that like those words belong together.

Probably because the average individual investor is not smart, they get in after things are rolling and they get out after things have already cratered not waiting for the rebound.



I don't disagree with your ideal I disagree that you think it really matters in the end. I wish Social Security didn't encourage the opposite of the ideal but it in fact does. I wonder if you calculated the average employees SS payments as a lump sum and added that as an asset what the numbers would look like. SS distorts behavior and those who decry wealth distribution don't address SS effects.

Not sure why you dispute my assertion on growth; as though it's unnatural. Mimosa trees are vigorous growers and reseed volunteers quickly, littering the landscape and starving the competition of available nutrients. Having asserted it's dominance, a hillside of mimosas is a spectacular site when in bloom, but it is short-lived, characterized by leggy growth and easily broken by winds. Whereas diversity provides a continual bounty; intermingled with the majestic oak standing strong against the full force of storms, weakening them to drafts; thus providing many the opportunity to grow and prosper.

It sounds to me like you're saying the market depends on those high taxpayers because SS payments need to made and that's the only way to take care of society's future. Does SS even matter? It has an effect on private behavior, because people take home less money, but it's far from being privately controlled--as there's no ownership. I make no assumption I will ever collect SSI, barring some debilitation. I want to retire at 50 (living aboard a sailboat,:thumb:), any social security I've paid in isn't a consideration-- not now, not then. SS is a joke, everybody knows it. i don't think there's a way to fix it, only a way to move away from it--and that requires the increase in the number of persons investing privately.

I propose making everybody pay 15% to SS (up to max per annum, like a sole proprietor)--that should encourage hiring. Rather than traditional wage/salary employee/ employer relationships--give each ownership of their time -- where pay is for what's accomplished. The drudgery of scheduled hours, wage or salary, offers about the same incentive to perform as 40 acres and a mule. I'll pass on the 9to5, not too far off three hots and a cot IMO; and given our increasing prison population, the latter is preferable to a great many. I've got some ideas about corporations too; where liability is the sole protection. Property, rather physical or intellectual, should always be personally held and leased for a period in exchange for stock yielding dividends.

Why not create a market which more people can participate in, giving more the opportunity to make their way? It seems it always comes down to the market being unpredictable, so those persons over-invested end up failing miserably~compelling a call for increased protections. But why do they fail, simply stupidity? Failure is an important aspect in the path of success; so don't think for a minute, not even for a second, that those who fail at something are stupid; they're stupid if they do it again-- and government is promoting this stupidity by offering protections against future failure.

In a completely free society we wouldn't be having this discussion; but we're governed by law and that governance costs us something. What matters most isn't what it costs, but rather we have an vested interest, an ownership, in the outcome (be it a gain or loss). People talk about jobs and income, wealth and poverty because there's no unifying interest beyond dollars and cents. As I see it, most people pay more attention to the cost of gas than they do their ssi statement. That's the problem, no interest in the intrinsic value of personal investment, only what is readily quantifiable. (Read a few of Buffet's letters to shareholder which discuss the intrinsic value of an investment) (http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/letters.html). It's the same for those dependent on ssi, they pay no attention to where it comes from and why, how they can take ownership of what is bestowed on them; nope, only the numbers after the $. Well I say to hell with that. Money is fiat; made up... the treasury shows us that everyday-- trillions in bailouts--where'd that come from? Aren't we in a recession? It's time we realize investment is more than money, it's a stated goal. If that goal is merely more money, than we've devised only a means to more means, with no end in sight--and those with more money will forever be at odds with those with less.

[fj1200]

Not sure why you dispute my assertion on growth...

Why not create a market which more people can participate in, giving more the opportunity to make their way?

I'm not sure what I disputed and I'm also not sure how you think you can just create a market that "more people can participate in." A "diversity of ownership"? :rolleyes:

Maybe it will make more sense when I read it later.

[logroller]

I'm not sure what I disputed and I'm also not sure how you think you can just create a market that "more people can participate in." A "diversity of ownership"? :rolleyes:

Maybe it will make more sense when I read it later.

Simplify tax laws to start with; they're so complex, it offers little opportunity to the average person. Install ownership in labor market second. Make money payable for debts ONLY, limited for use as a capital investment to a period of time, like bonds.

[fj1200]

Simplify tax laws to start with; they're so complex, it offers little opportunity to the average person. Install ownership in labor market second. Make money payable for debts ONLY, limited for use as a capital investment to a period of time, like bonds.

I like simplifying tax laws but I'm not sure how changing tax laws can offer opportunity. I'm not sure what difference the rest will make if they're even feasible.