Buffett Speaks The Truth

To me, that would be a very high pressure way to make a living.

But then, you might consider what I do a high pressure job as well.

Anytime you have to make a decision concering large sums of money, or others livelyhoods, there is a certain amount of pressure involved. People like you and I can do it, but the vast multitudes of worker bees out there either will not, or cannot.

Like you said in a previous post. Life isn't fair.

And don't forget that without deductions for charities a lot of people would just be dying out of poverty. Originally Posted by waverunner234

If you wanna give, give but why should I have to make up the difference?

WTF is everyone gave to their favorite charity and nobody paid any taxes.

Yea the poor would be better off but who would pay for all the other shit?

Get rid of all the loop holes I say.

Not anymore, I put in the work years ago. Now I thrive on experience.
My "work" is forex if you know what that means. Originally Posted by waverunner234

It all averages out...the problem with some is they never have put the work in , either in their younger years or now.

Reminds me of the ant and the grasshopper.

. . . Life isn't fair. Originally Posted by Jackie S

That is one of the bigger problems we have, as a country... too many people think it's supposed to be... or believe that fairness is owed to them! * Get over it... it is not!! * Not when it comes at the total expense of others!

The lefties can call this attitude cold, cruel, uncaring, uncompassionate, apathetic , whatever...
The Pussification of America began when a sense of self-reliance and personal responsibility quit being taught to the masses , and was replaced by The New Deal & The Great Society!!

I will agree... it would nice if life was fair.... but it's not... never was... never will be... nobody ever convinced me that it would be!!

BTW , WTF.... that's not anger... it's just a fact!! * I am quite happy that I was fortunate enough to be given nothing but a sense of self-wealth at an early age... it has served me well. I am a Happy Lucky Dawg!

I will agree... it would nice if life was fair.... but it's not... never was... never will be... nobody ever convinced me that it would be!!

! Originally Posted by MrGiz

Then quit bitching like a punk ass liberal when Buffet says he thinks the rich should pay their fair share.

Maybe it ain't fair that the super wealthy have to pay more.

Fuc'em.

Let them eat cake

I will agree... it would nice if life was fair.... but it's not... never was... never will be... nobody ever convinced me that it would be!! Originally Posted by MrGiz

Maybe it ain't fair that the super wealthy have to pay more. Originally Posted by WTF

Come on WTF, what MrGiz really meant was that life is only supposed to be fair to the rich people.

Come on WTF, what MrGiz really meant was that life is only supposed to be fair to the rich people. Originally Posted by Doove

Life is fair to everyone, only it is more fair to some, is that would you mean?

Life is fair to everyone, only it is more fair to some, is that would you mean? Originally Posted by waverunner234

Life is fair to me. It's not fair to people that deserve something.

Then quit bitching like a punk ass liberal when Buffet says he thinks the rich should pay their fair share.... Originally Posted by WTF

You really need to quit driveling , and do a better job of paying attention... how many times do I need to agree with you on the revenue side of this silly argument? * The only time I came close to disagreeing with you, was when I asked "How Much Is Enough"? * I already know the answer... it resides in my signature line!!

Come on WTF, what MrGiz really meant was that life is only supposed to be fair to the rich people. Originally Posted by Doove

I expected more from you too.... that was pretty weak!

Life is fair to everyone, only it is more fair to some, is that would you mean? Originally Posted by waverunner234

In a perverse way... your inverse take is somewhat true... "no such thing" as fair.... "everything" is fair! Take it whichever way feels best.... same results.

Would he be posting in this thread if he was in the 2%+ group? I doubt it.
And yes of course I do agree with the higher tax rates for the rich. And why would you have restrictions on how to use that extra money that WB would pay? You don't have those restrictions for his employees who pay more do you? Originally Posted by waverunner234

WB also stated that he could fix the budget problem by making a law that if the deficit were more than 3% that all house and senate members would not be eligible for reelection. I doubt that either has a chance of passing.
Sounds like he also supports a balanced budget amendment though.

From the WSJ:

Barney Kilgore, the man who made the Wall Street Journal into a national publication, was once asked why so many rich people favored higher taxes. That's easy, he replied. They already have their money.
That insight is worth recalling amid the latest political duet from President Obama and Warren Buffett demanding higher taxes on "millionaires and billionaires." Mr. Buffett is repeating his now familiar argument this week, coinciding with Mr. Obama's Midwestern road trip on the economy. Since the media are treating Mr. Buffett as a tax oracle, let's take a closer look at some of the billionaire's intellectual tax dodges.

• The double tax oversight. The Berkshire Hathaway magnate makes much of the fact that he paid only 17.4% of his income in taxes, which he considers unfair when salaried workers often pay more. But Mr. Buffett makes most of his income from his investments, in particular from dividends and capital gains that are taxed at a rate of 15%.

What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%.






This onerous tax on capital is a U.S. competitive disadvantage in the global economy, which is why Congress agreed in 2003 to cut the rates on dividends and capital gains. Even as the rest of the world is cutting tax rates on corporate income, Mr. Buffett wants to raise U.S. rates in a way that would make America less attractive for investment. Under a sensible tax reform, the feds would impose either a corporate tax or a dividend and capital gains tax, but not both.

• The middle-class bait-and-switch. Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Buffett speaks about raising taxes only on the rich. But somehow he ignores that the President's tax increase starts at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Mr. Obama ought to call them "thousandaires," but that probably doesn't poll as well.

The President needs to levy his tax increase at such a lower income level because that's where the money is. In 2009, 237,000 taxpayers reported income above $1 million and they paid $178 billion in taxes. A mere 8,274 filers reported income above $10 million, and they paid only $54 billion in taxes.

But 3.92 million reported income above $200,000 in 2009, and they paid $434 billion in taxes. To put it another way, roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama's plan aren't millionaires, and 99.99% aren't billionaires.

Mr. Buffett says it's only "fair" to raise his taxes, but he's lending his credibility to raising taxes on millions of middle-class earners for whom a few extra thousand dollars in after-tax income is a big deal. Unlike Mr. Buffett, those middle-class earners aren't rich and may earn $250,000 for only a few years of their working lives. How is that fair?

• The charity loophole. For billionaires like Mr. Buffett, the single most important deduction in the tax code is for charitable giving. Middle-class earners can't give nearly as much money away to reduce their overall tax burden. Yet we don't hear Mr. Buffett calling for the elimination of that deduction in the name of fairness.

Editorial writer Mary Kissel on how Obama's taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" would hurt the middle class. Also, Bartley Fellow Charlie Dameron on Texas Governor Rick Perry's liabilities as a GOP presidential candidate.

Mr. Buffett has also already sheltered the bulk of his fortune from federal taxes by putting them into a foundation that will give the money away.

That's an act of generosity, but if the government's purposes are so vital, why doesn't he simply give the money to the IRS?

Rebecca Quick of CNBC put that question to Mr. Buffett in 2007. His answer: "Well, that's a choice and it's an option . . . If I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multibillionaire, or give it to the government, I'd absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government."

Mr. Buffett is no doubt right about the relative efficiency of private donors, but should billionaire philanthropists get such a large tax preference? Another case of fairness?

Mr. Buffett is one of the great stock-pickers of his time, and we don't begrudge him a single dollar of his wealth. We only wish that, having already made himself rich, he weren't so intent on making it harder for others to become rich too. If he's worried about being undertaxed, we'd suggest he simply write a big check to Uncle Sam and go back to his day job of picking investments.

Prosperity and equality for whom, the 50% who don't pay any taxes?? Originally Posted by Wizard of Ahhhhs

Only if they really existed somewhere else than at either the very top or very bottom - you'll have a hard time coming up with a 50% head count even by combining the two groups. Who wants to trade places with a family of 4 making $80K who pays 20% of their adjusted gross income to the IRS? It's a lot better to be another family of 4 making $500K and paying 12%-15% of their AGI, wouldn't you think? Or is more not MORE? Maybe it's too simple to be grasped.

Of course, when 50% of the workforce finally gets down to paying 0% income tax, what a lovely world it will be. The only way out of this mess is to have a vast majority of families with adequate disposable income to buy goods and services. That's why cutting wages to become more "competative" in the "global economy" is the only true path of becoming Ecuador (or India). We really need more immigrants willing to live 12 to a room, work for $8.00/hr and send half of it back to wherever they came from. Maybe we all should try that - it seems to be the "ideal" road to the "American Dream" these days.

Does anyone really believe that "easing the corporate tax burden" will result in lower prices?

• The double tax oversight. The Berkshire Hathaway magnate makes much of the fact that he paid only 17.4% of his income in taxes, which he considers unfair when salaried workers often pay more. But Mr. Buffett makes most of his income from his investments, in particular from dividends and capital gains that are taxed at a rate of 15%.

What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Just what I'm talking about. Here you are, probably not even paying the 35% rate, and you're shilling for the Republicans to save Warren Fuckin' Buffett of all people from having to pay a little more tax. Just fuckin' amazing.

Sourced.

Perhaps Whirlaway, when he gets done telling us the difference between playing golf and bike riding or working out (chirp chirp), can post a graphic indicating to what extent the Republican/Tea Partiers are on the side of the American people.

The double tax oversight[/I]. The Berkshire Hathaway magnate makes much of the fact that he paid only 17.4% of his income in taxes, which he considers unfair when salaried workers often pay more. But Mr. Buffett makes most of his income from his investments, in particular from dividends and capital gains that are taxed at a rate of 15%.

What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway;

• [I

The capital gains he made were most likely from his own trading. The only entities that I know of which distribute them to holders are mutual funds which are required to do so by law. (Just one of those things you learn from working at a very large manager of mutual funds and your primary IT clients happen to be accountants). Also corporations deduct the dividends they distribute to stockholders from their corporate income, therefore they are not subject to corporate tax.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...30_C_40_I.html