Shock - Buffet says the rich aren't taxed enough!

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Taken from the Bill Gates Foundation Website -
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. - Bill Gates Foundation - Fact Sheet

Yeah... just like you said. Fuck that!
Oy vey. :rolleyes: :no:



That wasn't the point of that post. Someone suggested that Warren Buffett "put his money where is mouth is" and make donations. I listed several to show that person (who really doesn't give a damn anyhow) that Buffett actually does make huge donations to various causes, and considering what the Bill Gates Foundation attempts to do with its donations I felt it was one worth noting. It wasn't intended to reflect anything else but that. Nobody, not even Warren Buffett, has enough money on their own to completely reverse decades of economic screw-ups and flawed government, so whatever you're ranting about in regards to Warren Buffett's donations is irrelevant.

Ranting, LOL! I can't believe you used a mission statement to justify your comments.

Charitable foundations have long been used by the super rich as a way of avoiding tax whilst maintaining control of their assets - simultaneously appearing philanthropic, whilst exerting greater influence via lobbying, tacit & transparent, pushing corporate agendas transnationally, whilst holding economic clout in both the charitable & financial sphere.

A foundation need only disburse 5% of its assets annually - investment return is normally greater than this. At any time, charitable exemption may be revoked, personally or externally, at which point, ALL assets return to the foundation owners.

This is why Buffet set up a stipulation that his contribution had to be spent & matched during the year. However, his contribution is over 20 years, so it doesn't affect the 5% disbursement - it just makes it look like that foundation is disbursing more.

The Gates' foundation invests in areas completely contrary to its alleged aims. I know several massive charitable trusts that run hedge funds & investment companies, & as major shareholders exert enormous influence over the media & the gamut of industrials. For all we know, Buffet's donations are also attached to a demand to invest in certain areas, including his own areas.

A couple of the myriad charitable tax dodges anyone can indulge in:

TV stars in charity tax dodge inquiry - Times Online

Charity Donation | IRD After Tax-dodge Fundraisers At Sausage Sizzles

In summary, it's still the rich keeping control of their assets & influence unlike 99% of working stiffs, who dutifully hand over the cash that they earned to the government.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Ranting, LOL! I can't believe you used a mission statement to justify your comments.

I could use more (and you know damn well I can), but I wasn't in the mood to formulate a highly detailed post when I knew it was going to be ignored or completely disregarded.

Charitable foundations have long been used by the super rich as a way of avoiding tax whilst maintaining control of their assets - simultaneously appearing philanthropic, whilst exerting greater influence via lobbying, tacit & transparent, pushing corporate agendas transnationally, whilst holding economic clout in both the charitable & financial sphere.

A foundation need only disburse 5% of its assets annually - investment return is normally greater than this. At any time, charitable exemption may be revoked, personally or externally, at which point, ALL assets return to the foundation owners.

This is why Buffet set up a stipulation that his contribution had to be spent & matched during the year. However, his contribution is over 20 years, so it doesn't affect the 5% disbursement - it just makes it look like that foundation is disbursing more.

The Gates' foundation invests in areas completely contrary to its alleged aims. I know several massive charitable trusts that run hedge funds & investment companies, & as major shareholders exert enormous influence over the media & the gamut of industrials. For all we know, Buffet's donations are also attached to a demand to invest in certain areas, including his own areas.

And not only are you still over thinking things, you're still missing the point.
I already explained what my intentions were. I don't need you (or anyone else) trying to show me the way here. Not everything Warren Buffett does is perfect, but what he's saying on this particular subject is right. If you want to argue that, then let's go. You have personal grievance with Warren Buffett contributing to the Gates Foundation? That's something you need to deal with on your own. Period.
 

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
851
Media
29
Likes
4,073
Points
398
Age
45
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
This has all been argued before. The republic of Ireland can attract foreign companies by reducing tax rates because it is the one country out of step and has a small economy. So it can attract enough companies willing or able to uproot to make the cut in rates actually pay. If all the countries in the whole world cut their rates to exactly the same level, say if they cut by an average of 1/2, the amount of money received will also be 1/2. Cutting rates is simply a race to the bottom where no one pays any tax at all. What is required is international agreement to raise rates equally, and international agreement to penalise countries which are out of step.

A good place for the UK to start would be UK controlled tax havens.

The problem is, a company doesn't need to "uproot" to be based in Ireland. Google's primary presence still is in the U.S.
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,899
Media
0
Likes
323
Points
208
Gender
Male
Don't have anything to back this up but when taxes are higher people seem to hustle a little more instead of sitting on their money. Buffet is right nobody is going turn down a good investment over 4% in tax difference.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Don't have anything to back this up but when taxes are higher people seem to hustle a little more instead of sitting on their money. Buffet is right nobody is going turn down a good investment over 4% in tax difference.

Now you've got me picturing Buffet in a Pimp suit & a golden cane, whilst Bill Gates is hand jiving at a roller disco:smile:

Do The Hustle - YouTube

Edit: Wow that was a better tune than I remembered. It's certainly happy!
 
Last edited:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Well Obama just mentioned Buffet's tax rate is his ongoing address on the American Job's Act.

I've gotta say, it sounds like he's just electioneering in his address(But then again, who isn't electioneering). Most of what he's saying won't get done, or can't get done.

"We have to outbuild, out educate, & out innovate every country on earth!"

"I wanna see more products with the three proud words "Made in America"

Bombing them's a start!:biggrin1:
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The problem is, a company doesn't need to "uproot" to be based in Ireland. Google's primary presence still is in the U.S.
Im sure some clever lawyer would be only too happy to draft something which said that if a companies main activities are not in country A, then it will not be treated as based in country A. Surely such proposals must be sitting on every treasury departments desk?
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
The reason you would take more tax is that fewer rich Brits would move away to avoid the taxes? I don't think lowering the tax now will induce them to give up their offshore dodging residences. Most of those are corporations instead of individuals anyway.

Let's look at the Scandinavian model, where most everybody pays nearly 50%. It has not caused mass migrations.

No, but I hear the suicide rate is high. :biggrin1:
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
His wish would come true if he lived in Canada. We have a progressive tax system here meaning the more you earn, the more you pay. We are taxed to death here on anything and everything!
But I hear the economy is doing quite well in these difficult times?
 

ripsrips

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Posts
1,315
Media
10
Likes
2,468
Points
443
Location
California (United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
August 30, 2011

More on Warren Buffett’s Tax Hypocrisy

http://taxprof.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4eab53ef015434d3e3d6970c-popup
For a guy who spends a lot of time advocating for higher taxes, Warren Buffett does a remarkably good job of minimizing his own corporate tax bill. This is all to the good for Mr. Buffett and his fellow Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, who no doubt can invest the money more wisely than the federal government is likely to do.
Mr. Buffett's recent decision to invest in Bank of America represents another tax-avoidance triumph for the Berkshire chief executive. U.S. corporations are subject to a top federal income tax rate of 35%, the second highest in the world. But the Journal's Erik Holm notes that Mr. Buffett and the Berkshire bunch won't pay anything close to that on their investment in BofA preferred shares.
That's because corporations can exclude from taxation 70% of the dividends they receive from an investment in another corporation. This exclusion is intended to prevent double- or even triple-taxation as money is earned by one company, paid to another company and then ultimately paid out to shareholders. The policy makes sense; we only wonder why the exclusion isn't 100%.
With the 70% exclusion for Mr. Buffett and his fellow shareholders, Berkshire will enjoy an effective tax rate of 10.5% on the $300 million in dividends it will receive each year from Bank of America.
We're tempted to suggest that Mr. Buffett should do what he might call the patriotic thing and volunteer Berkshire to pay the full 35% rate as a good corporate citizen. But even if Mr. Buffett won't say it, most Americans know that more jobs will be created if the money is deployed by the Berkshire bunch than by the Beltway boys.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
For a guy who spends a lot of time advocating for higher taxes, Warren Buffett does a remarkably good job of minimizing his own corporate tax bill.[WSJ]
SO what would you suggest. He should give every penny he has to the US government when no one else does? What he is arguing for is a fairer system where he will give his share, not one where he personally taxes on the entire national debt.

It is hard to believe people working for the wall street journal are not intelligent enough to understand this perfectly well, yet insist upon misrepresenting him?

But even if Mr. Buffett won't say it, most Americans know that more jobs will be created if the money is deployed by the Berkshire bunch than by the Beltway boys. [WSJ]
I dont know it. Do you? I presume Buffett makes money from trading in shares, and that makes nothing for the nation.
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
August 30, 2011

More on Warren Buffett’s Tax Hypocrisy


For a guy who spends a lot of time advocating for higher taxes, Warren Buffett does a remarkably good job of minimizing his own corporate tax bill. This is all to the good for Mr. Buffett and his fellow Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, who no doubt can invest the money more wisely than the federal government is likely to do.
Mr. Buffett's recent decision to invest in Bank of America represents another tax-avoidance triumph for the Berkshire chief executive. U.S. corporations are subject to a top federal income tax rate of 35%, the second highest in the world. But the Journal's Erik Holm notes that Mr. Buffett and the Berkshire bunch won't pay anything close to that on their investment in BofA preferred shares.
That's because corporations can exclude from taxation 70% of the dividends they receive from an investment in another corporation. This exclusion is intended to prevent double- or even triple-taxation as money is earned by one company, paid to another company and then ultimately paid out to shareholders. The policy makes sense; we only wonder why the exclusion isn't 100%.
With the 70% exclusion for Mr. Buffett and his fellow shareholders, Berkshire will enjoy an effective tax rate of 10.5% on the $300 million in dividends it will receive each year from Bank of America.
We're tempted to suggest that Mr. Buffett should do what he might call the patriotic thing and volunteer Berkshire to pay the full 35% rate as a good corporate citizen. But even if Mr. Buffett won't say it, most Americans know that more jobs will be created if the money is deployed by the Berkshire bunch than by the Beltway boys.

It gets better: Bershire Hathaway doesn't pay their taxes:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-much-is-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-back-tax-bill-exactly-about-1-billion/

Further, Buffett is a major donor to Obama. Anyone who thinks its a coincidence that Buffett comes out to say "raise my taxes, I'm a billionaire" just in time for Obama's job speech and included tax hikes is naive at best.

Obama knew this would invigorate his base, so he phoned in a favor. You bet your bottom dollar that there is some favorable tax treatment coming Buffett’s way.

Also, you may notice that in Obama's vernacular "millionaires and billionaires" starts at just $250k/yr; many of whom do not have a net worth of over $1/m.
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
SO what would you suggest. He should give every penny he has to the US government when no one else does? What he is arguing for is a fairer system where he will give his share, not one where he personally taxes on the entire national debt.

It is hard to believe people working for the wall street journal are not intelligent enough to understand this perfectly well, yet insist upon misrepresenting him?

I dont know it. Do you? I presume Buffett makes money from trading in shares, and that makes nothing for the nation.

You should do more research.


50% of the lowest income households in the United State pay $0 in federal taxes. Explain how its fair for 50% of the people to pay $0 and everyone else to carry the entire load. That bottom 50% uses roads, port security, the EPA, the DOT, ect ect ect ect ect, just like everyone else. Wouldn't it be fair if they paid something?

I got a full refund from the fed this year. I couldn't believe I was going to get a check for every penny I paid. I didn't cash that check. Its my duty to pay something for living in this country. I feel its unjust to make people who have more money than me pay for the services I use.

This isn't about "fair share" or "just amounts" its about class warfare. Anyone who watched the debt ceiling debates had to walk away saying that the Democrats only care about continuing their absurd class war. I don't see that in the Republicans. Cut, Cap, Balance was probably the single most appropriate piece of legislation we've seen in decades.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,854
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You should do more research.


50% of the lowest income households in the United State pay $0 in federal taxes. Explain how its fair for 50% of the people to pay $0 and everyone else to carry the entire load. That bottom 50% uses roads, port security, the EPA, the DOT, ect ect ect ect ect, just like everyone else. Wouldn't it be fair if they paid something?

It has been explained on this forum many, many times that just because someone doesn't have to send a check to the IRS on April 15th they haven't paid taxes. I find it fascinating that you, an adult, can't understand something I learned back in 3rd grade Gifted Economics.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Explain how its fair for 50% of the people to pay $0 and everyone else to carry the entire load.
Because 50% of the people have 99% of the wealth? there are some figures here Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power wich say 1% of the US owns 35% of the wealth, the next 19% owns 50%, so the top 20% owns 85%. Excluding the value of your own house, so therefore a measure of more available wealth, the top 1% owns 40% of wealth in the uS. It has another curious fact about $100 biliion sitting in untaxable trust fund.

I feel its unjust to make people who have more money than me pay for the services I use.
I presume you also think it is just for a small number of people to hold all the wealth of the US?

This isn't about "fair share" or "just amounts" its about class warfare.
If you mean it is about the class called poor wanting money from the class called rich, of course it is. Where else do you get money than from someone who has it now?
 

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
193
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
He's comparing capital gains tax to income tax...not a very legitimate comparison; the vast majority of his income is based off of capital gains..his salary is only $100,000...
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
It has been explained on this forum many, many times that just because someone doesn't have to send a check to the IRS on April 15th they haven't paid taxes. I find it fascinating that you, an adult, can't understand something I learned back in 3rd grade Gifted Economics.

So, when the fed witholds $100 then gives that $100 back to you, you actually paid what? $100?

Teach me.
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Because 50% of the people have 99% of the wealth? there are some figures here Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power wich say 1% of the US owns 35% of the wealth, the next 19% owns 50%, so the top 20% owns 85%. Excluding the value of your own house, so therefore a measure of more available wealth, the top 1% owns 40% of wealth in the uS. It has another curious fact about $100 biliion sitting in untaxable trust fund.
Of course you exclude the value of their homes, thats where the majority of their wealth is. Its hard to have a class war when your numbers are so stark.

Heres something for you: Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

I presume you also think it is just for a small number of people to hold all the wealth of the US?
Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt or hesitations, yes. They can hold whatever they earned. If they stole it, then its not just. If they practised crony capitalism (think BoA, Obama, and Democrats) then that isn't just. If they, like Apple, produce a great product that people want then they deserve 100% of everything they have.

If you mean it is about the class called poor wanting money from the class called rich, of course it is. Where else do you get money than from someone who has it now?
EXACTLY! ! ! ! Liberals seem to not understand that there is another source of money: work. Believe. It isn't a mythical thing. Putting in the hard work and mental elbow grease can reap massive rewards. Taking someone elses money, which I find amazing that you admit this is only about taking someones money, is called 'greed.' If you want to reap the reward of spending time with your family, then you have to give something up. If you want money then you have to give something up, if you want to golf all day (president) then you have to give something up. There is no free lunch. Even if you steal the money from the rich, there is always a cost.
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
He's comparing capital gains tax to income tax...not a very legitimate comparison; the vast majority of his income is based off of capital gains..his salary is only $100,000...
Buffett? Absolutely.

Not only that, he forgets to mention that his dividends are taxed at 35%, the company pays half and he pays half; thus the 17%. When he said "I only pay 17%" he was being dishonest.

Of course, if you believed Buffett to be doing this out of the generosity of his heart you were never meant to understand anyway.