Stop Coddling the Super-Rich - By Warren Buffett
 

Yes, I know most people here are smarter than him and probably make more money than he does, but this is a good read by Warren Buffett.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...h.html?_r=4&hp

It wants me to have an account

From 60 Minutes
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minu...YobUe97cI5eXnV

yeah saw that last night.. I didn't realize corporate taxes in the US were so high compared to other countries.. no wonder everyone is going off shore with their shit... more than double some countries...

yeah, now that he's 80 and the 3rd richest man in the world, he wants to do away with the tax code he had the luxury of living under.
at this age, he's just a doddering old fool the left trots out when they want to tax the rich.

what the old fool forgets to say is that NONE of obama or the left's tax ideas include changing the rate of investment income to that of earned income. The only tax ideas they have are to take more away from people with EARNED income over 200k a year. You know, to take more from the actual EARNERS.

Well, working as a regular employee, I remember starting out at $8/hour and
going up to around $30/hour.

My taxes got higher each time I got a raise.

I thought, so fucking what.

I could pay it.

People who paid less taxes drove shit cars and lived in shit apartments.
I bet they all wanted to pay more taxes. If you get my drift.

is your drift that at $62k a tear you felt rich?

You missed the entire point. You made more, you standard of living increased, but you paid more. But at $30/hour your not rich. The point is the rich don't pay taxes.

The rich have their wives drive their expensive SUVs to drop off the kids at their soccer game. The big SUV is a company car - which means the lease is written off, the insurance, and the gas. The rich have big homes, some of which includes an office so they can work from home, and of course they use it to entertain their clients so that's a tax write off - including the power, the internet, the tv cable, etc etc etc etc.... Then the rich don't take their kids to Disneyland. Instead, they go on business trips. Now the rich business man wants to take his wife, which means the kids and the nanny has to come. Setting aside the fact that his nanny is a write off, they go on their business trip to California or Florida where they meet with a potential client - and then the entire vacation, errr, trip, is written off.

When you go on vacation it costs you cash money up front. When the rich go on vacation it's a tax write off.

No, my drift was a piece of wood that obviously struck you in the head.

Dumb motherfucker.


:1orglaugh

I didn't miss the point.

My point is that the rich need to pay out and quit whining since everybody else
who isn't rich is paying higher taxes as their income increases.

How did you read anything different in my post?

That may be your point but that isn't the reality. "Should" very rarely equals "is." And when you are talking about an international company anyway, it's really not that far out of the imagination that they would set up shop anywhere in the world. If they are setting up shop anywhere in the world (where they do business), why would they not go to the cheapest tax areas?

It also sounds like you're talking about personal income taxes, and not corporate taxes.

The economist in the video brought up some interesting points, though I don't know anything else about him. Not sure what the answer is, but stomping feet screaming that "mega corporations should pay more taxes!" just isn't going to do squat.

its so funny watching the poor explain the world.:1orglaugh

So happy to hear you're amused :winkwink::thumbsup

The rich complain because inflation makes a million dollar salary look like crap now. So they are a bit pissed off at having to pay way more than the average Joe in taxes that aren't written off...

BTW, you make write offs sound like you are getting something for free. You are not. You still have to pay for the trip. You just don't have to pay taxes on a portion of it.

He can lead by example and give half his wealth to the US Treasury. Nothing is stopping him.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Come on Buffett put up or shut the fuck up!

He already gave half his wealth to charity.

But clearly you understand that one person can't pay off the nation's debt, he needs other wealthy people to come on board and pay an extra 2%.

The problem isn't with how much or little taxes anyone pays...it's about how inefficient and wasteful the government behaves with the revenue.

Here's what I hate about this article, I've had it linked to me a number of times and he's completely fucking full of shit.

Here's the thing; if he, and all his super rich friends, are so willing to pay extra taxes. Then do it!! What's stopping him? Does he need a bill? What for? Just cut a check right fucking now...

Put your money where you mouth is Buffett and have all your little rich friends that are supposedly sooo happy to pay additional taxes do the same thing. Until you walk the walk you're just standing on a flimsy ass soapbox spilling swill out of your over-sized cock holster.

/endrant

Buffett to Give Bulk of His Fortune to Gates Charity

Warren E. Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and one of the world's wealthiest men, plans to donate the bulk of his $44 billion fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and four other philanthropies starting in July.

...

Mr. Buffett plans to give away 85 percent of his fortune, or about $37.4 billion, all in Berkshire stock. Of that amount, he will channel the greatest share, about $31 billion, into the Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation, dedicated to improving health and education, especially in poor nations, is already the United States' largest grant-making foundation, with current assets of almost $30 billion.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/26/bu...26buffett.html

:2 cents:

Sorry if you people do not understand the difference between charity and the government. He wants the rich to pay more to the government. So why doesn't he put up or shut up?

Good Im glad he is PLANNING on giving it to charity, that is how it should be done. But he is promoting the idea of the government TAKING it. Does he need the government to take it from him or is he willing to give it to the government freely? Like RIGHT NOW. Like he is suggesting.

Of course he uses every single loophole there is. He is a walking hypocrite.

They created a website just for that purpose:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r.../gift/gift.htm
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/for...ormId=23779454

collected whole $2M in 2011 :1orglaugh

Funny how an 80yr olds word... one which suddenly contradicts how he's lived his entire life is taken as gospel, rather than questioned as he's obviously old and losing his mind.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...11_page_2.html
As always, the Republican leaders justified their intransigence by invoking the demons of job-killing taxes that would suppress the dynamism of overtaxed Americans, hampering growth. This is partisan nonsense. In terms of the economy as a whole, federal taxes are at their lowest level since 1950. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would account for 14.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2011.

That isn’t a one-year anomaly: Revenue was 14.9 percent of GDP in both 2009 and 2010. Compare that with a postwar average of about 18.5 percent of GDP, and an average of 18.2 percent during the Administration of President Ronald Reagan. Which brings us to another dubious claim: Raising taxes in a downturn hinders growth. In 1982, amid a punishing 16-month recession, Reagan approved the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. A booming economy followed in 1983 and 1984, enabling him to sail to re-election.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton forced a tax increase through Congress that Representative Dick Armey, then chairman of the House Republican Conference, condemned as a “job killer” that would push the economy into recession. That increase was succeeded by the creation of 23 million new jobs, and the Clinton Administration left a budget surplus of about $236 billion. By contrast, President George W. Bush pushed through two rounds of tax cuts and created just 3 million jobs. He also turned the surplus he inherited into a $1.2 trillion deficit.

He said this in 2006, many julys have past since then.
Talk is cheap

Cliffs notes:
I want my betters to pay my way

Bloomberg is your betters it was in his magazine not my words. That liberal publication businessweek lol

Of course they're not your words. You can barely string a sentence together

Yep.

Also it's not WEALTH that is taxed. It's INCOME. So as long as a person or company has enough write offs to not show INCOME then they won't pay taxes. So Buffet has billions in wealth. And now to offset his income he's giving a ton of it away to charity. It's all about avoiding taxes.

Taxes SUCK. I think that all of you who are so hot to raise taxes would start paying them then, you can be happy. Me? I don't want to give those criminals in Washington one more penny than I have to.

If a person earns their money they should be able to keep it.

And if you want to raise more money for the govt. then take away ALL deductions and charge a flat tax of 15% and require that ALL citizens pay it. 'Cause right now...most Americans don't pay income tax at all. I'm pretty sure that it's 1% of Americans paying all the taxes.

Now THAT isn't fair. And it isn't fair for people to get tax "refunds" when they don't even pay ANY tax in the first place.
Remember a few years back when the federal govt. sent out those checks to everybody? Well...EVERYBODY shouldn't have gotten them. Just the few who actually pay taxes.

Have any of these cultural warfare people who HATE the rich (and I guess want to be poor all of their lives) ever thought that IF everyone paid 15% with no deductions (and I mean EVERYONE) that this country would be swimming in govt. revenues? Of course the crooks in Washington D.C. would still spend all of it and then more too...

Remember this old commercial from 1986 that WR Grace put out:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AiBCR...ature=youtu.be

I do. The govt. needs to STOP spending.

I think people are missing the real situation at play here. The super wealthy are asking for "small government" because power is a zero sum game. When one entity loses power, another entity gains power. Power never leaves behind a vacuum. So while "small government" may appeal to the average blue collar Joe, it's really a euphemism for transferring power to the rich.

When the government loses power, it's not distributed back among the people, it moves to the next entity in line. With the banks controlling over 50% of the entire country's GDP, that means they inherit all the power given up by the government.

Look at the work being done by the latest session of Congress. Gutting the EPA, gutting the SEC, Gutting the new consumer credit watchdog agency which STILL doesn't have a leader because they keep blocking it. That's what they mean by "small government". They mean take away all the power from the government and give it to the super wealthy.

Of course, that doesn't mean a government needs to have all the power. But what it means is that we need solid, middle of the road, pragmatic policy. Not his one-sided ideological nonsense we keep hearing.

/rant

So you must be laughing at yourself.

[QUOTE=V_RocKs;18360241BTW, you make write offs sound like you are getting something for free. You are not. You still have to pay for the trip. You just don't have to pay taxes on a portion of it.[/QUOTE]

Stop trying to explain it to people who obviously don't have accountants.

If you have a home in your office and even entertain, only part of the home costs can be placed as an expense, with so many here working from home why didn't they know this???

If you take a holiday and combine it with business only your flight and some expenses are on the business and your wife if she's employed by the company.

A nanny is an employee of the company.

A car can be on the company as pert of a lease deal.

Good luck if the tax inspector finds out if your wife is at home all time and the car isn't being used on company business. Then it becomes tax fraud.

Some of you guys really don't understand how it all works.

Taxes are given to the Government to feed back into the country, except when Bush and others decide to have a war or give it to Foreign Aid. Even a war needs weapons made by US factories.

Taxes are a fact of life. Cut them back and the end result is what? Less money circulating in the economy. Maybe some of the people who sign up to porn sites are earning money from the public purse? Policemen, Fireman, Administrators in local Government. The size of the labor force paid out of your taxes is enormous. Probably easily the biggest employer in the US by far.

So every time taxes are cut, 100s or 1,000s lose jobs. Look at Greece, UK, Italy and other countries for the numbers being put onto benefits because they're losing their jobs. Then think of the cutbacks they make to live on a smaller income. These people spend less.

Yes Government spends less, maybe less overseas, but the majority of the money is spent in the US. Fueling the US economy and indirectly your life style.

The problem the US and most of the Western World faces is far deeper and complex than Government spending and taxes.

It's why are so many people relying on the Government for money, as wages or benefits, and not in a productive job producing a profit from selling good in the US, not importing those goods and more not being exported?

And then there's another question. Why are so many Americans and other Western countries, living a life style they clearly don't deserve? If a country needs to borrow money, it's because it's not generating enough money of it's own. Countries have been living on the biggest credit card possible, just like the people in those countries. Now you're economies have hit a bump in the road, you can't afford the repayments.

Don't fool yourself that cuts in Government spending is going to put more money in your pocket. It will ONLY mean less will be borrowed. Or did you think all that money saved would be given back to you, while the borrowing remains at these levels?

http://reason.com/assets/mc/mwelch/2...t_the_rich.jpg



ADG

look who's still alive!

hey, how's that wife treating you, loser?
:1orglaugh

many people write it all off then get a surprise when they get audited and realize they can only write off 20-50%.

The people throwing the idea forward aren't people with accountants.