Posted on 08/27/2011 5:25:35 PM PDT by CutePuppy
next time I’ll post instruction just for you.
Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes, Best for Deficit: NABE - FR / CNBC, 2011 August 22
A point that too many overlook: Warren Buffett makes billions. If this cheap SOB only pays his secretary 36 grand a year he should be ashamed of himself. Greed has played a huge factor in todays economic crisis as well. And big government, through central control and planning, has made greed an easy thing. There is hardly a chance for decent competition. Too many regulations, controls, laws, lawyers, subsidies and you name it; to allow for fair competition in the free market. This a$$hole has made it this big primarily through greed. No matter how smart of an investor and manipulator...greed through power and advantage got him there.
Everything Mr. Buffet says has been filtered through his wealth centered, self serving, money making brain, and he is not the kind of man who really gives a damn about you, me, or anyone else but himself. We all know the Biblical truth about...."the love of money.....". You cannot amass so much money that you can stack it halfway up to Heaven as Buffet has done without a deep love for the stuff. So why would anything this man says be taken seriously by the general public. The general public are, after all, the ones who earn, work, build, and generate the money that Buffet worships so deeply and lives just to gather that money into his barns.
If Buffet feels he's not paying enough in taxes, then why doesn't he simply pay more than his share, perhaps fund our troops in Afghanistan with creature comforts that the military doesn't give them. Like tooth brushes, soap, cigarettes, matches, etc. People like Buffet are so self absorbed and self decieved by their infatuation and addiction to money that they live insulated from the "commoners" and can't even concieve of any realistic thought process of the kind that the rest of us must live by to survive.
Buffett is atheist and a liberal Democrat, so he is just being in his element.
Also, BH owns several insurance businesses (Geico, General Re, National Indemnity) and invested in banks (Wells Fargo) which are heavily regulated on federal and state levels. Being a liberal Democrat helps a lot from being harassed.
Another very “progressive” rich Democrat - who donates a lot of money to Dems at all levels but is reclusive and keeps a very low profile - is Peter B. Lewis (son of the founder) who is the largest shareholder of Progressive Corporation, (owner of Progressive Insurance) which is slightly larger than Buffett’s Geico (which started as Government Employees Insurance Company).
They were preferred shares, and the yield is higher than anyone else can get anywhere. In addition he gets warrents which he can exercise and dilute the common stock, thereby further robbing the ordinary shareholders.
Not quite so gutsy. Just the best deal that BAC could get.
I have a proposal for Warren Buffett. Instead of a higher income tax rate, which he’ll avoid with his clever accountants, I will take his personal fortune and give it to the government, and he gets to keep, say, $1 Billion. Most people could scratch by on $1 Billion, so I don’t think he could really complain. I’d like to make the same proposal to all of the Dem billionaires, such as Eric Schmidt, Jeffrey Immelt, and Lloyd Blankfein. I’m sure there are others. Let’s see how many go for it.
Unfortunately, because not too many people in the U.S. have taken or understood Accounting 101. That's precisely the audience the Democrats aim at, to provide majority of their votes - they are very susceptible to the class envy and "fair share" arguments.
Of course even that great paragon of free-market theory - Adam Smith - understood that government action was necessary to keep free markets free. But you are still a socialist plant /s/
He was actually called on that, with a similar proposal, by none other than Arthur Laffer:
Buffett a Hypocrite for Seeking Tax on Ultra-Rich: Laffer - FR / CNBC, , by Margo D. Beller, 2011 August 18
"The hypocrisy of Warren Buffett is unfathomable," Arthur Laffer, chairman of Laffer Associates, told CNBC Thursday, referring to the Berkshire Hathaway chairman. "If he really wanted to make (the tax code) fair, why doesn't he propose a wealth tax on everyone over $1 billion worth of wealth of 50 percent once and for all," Laffer said. "That would really work for him, but of course he's not going to suggest that because he would have to pay that." Laffer said most of Buffett's wealth is in unrealized capital gains. "It's never seen a tax, and when he gives (the investments) to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it never will. This is ridiculous," he said. ..... < snip >
The creator of the Laffer curve called Warren Buffett a hypocrite for urging lawmakers to raise taxes on the super-rich to cut the budget deficit.
And beside that, Buffet does not need to know any economic facts anymore. He hires the intellectual talent he needs to run his empire. That way, he has more time to play in the liberal cocktail circuit; getting boozed up and smoking pot and crack.
Greed I wouldn't mind. "Greed, for the lack of a better word, is good"
But using the power and resources of the government to gain unfair advantage in the market place through taxes, laws and regulations, is... not good. Buffett and his ilk practice crony socialism where the power of the government is used to disadvantage competitors.
Dont you get to deduct charitable contributions, thus making it look as your tax burden is less. I think they should include how much he dontated to charity as well as how much he paid in taxes and see what % he is paying
Dear Mr. Buffett:
Shuffett.
Actually, this was an assumption by the author to make the example (and actually, to minimize the secretary's tax rate, lest cheat Buffett of his favourable comparison). Yet the example itself actually destroys Buffett's argument og tax disparity even more:
Unlike Mr. Buffett's secretary, the capital representing Mr. Buffett's "income" would have already been taxed at the average combined corporate local and state rate of 7 percent, and the federal rate of 35 percent, before it ever reaches Mr. Buffett, and at 22 percent thereafter. (For simplicity's sake, I am rounding several tax rates and making assumptions about deductions.) A more accurate comparison of tax rates would find that Mr. Buffett's capital has an effective tax rate of about 50 percent, while his secretary pays a rate of about 19 percent. < snip > ..... Assuming his secretary makes $36,000 per year, excluding payroll taxes (which are ostensibly reserved for the employee's direct benefit), and after certain standard deductions and personal exemptions, the secretary's combined state, local and federal tax rate would be about 19 percent.
BTW, in recent years, the Berkshire Hathaway's effective corporate "income" tax rate was around 30% - not low, but not the maximum 35% tax rate. Maybe he should instruct BH accountants to pay top rate of 35%; after all, shareholders shouldn't mind.
For comparison, the top corporate tax rate in China was lowered in 2008 to 25% (personal = 45%, VAT = 17%) and average corporate rate is around 17%.
Yeah, the poor man will have to spend the $1 to pay his bills, the rich guy will indeed invest the $1 to make $2 and will use the tax rules and legal shelters to claim only 25 cents of the $2 as taxable income and will pay 1.5 cents in taxes. The poor guy trying to build his business doesn’t have the assets, connections or lawyers to “adjust” his taxable income in the same way so he spends his dollar, or at least the 15 cents he has left after taxes.
Piss off Warren.
LOL, you’re what we call “bitter.”
IMHO...
BAC accepting his offer implies that they really needed the cash infusion, since it will cost them hundreds of millions per year in dividend to him. BAC, if healthy, could certainly borrow at a lower rate. IMHO, only to the masses does this look like a “vote of confidence” from Buffett. When you think about it, this deal helps the PR image of both BAC and the White House. It’s a way of providing a small bailout using Buffett’s capital and simultaneously providing the “oracle of omaha” seal of approval for BAC, which was the unison media chorus the morning the deal was made public. No one in the press that morning asked “why would BAC need this capital if their assets were rock solid ?”
He has the warrants to purchase common just in case the bank somehow does very well and the price of Common goes way up. That’s an upside potential.
The phone call “from” Obama could have been backchannel initiated from Buffett; it very well could have been really about confirming that Treasury would bail out BAC if necessary, but I’m just speculating.
This would be the only possible downside to Buffet; if BAC fails. His Preferred shares would come before the suckers who own it’s Common stock, but behind creditors and bondholders, in the bankruptcy line.
But because of the size of BAC, undoubtedly, Obama would not want them to fail on his watch and would do something to keep them afloat through the end of 2012. This would, of course, ensure that Buffett continues to receive his $300 million a year in dividends.
Considering that if BAC goes belly up before Buffett exits his Preferred holding he would be in a real pickle, and given that he’s reliant on BAC working out and getting help from the government if necessary, his deal may be subject to political winds.
IMHO, Buffett must have received some tremendous assurances. The administration certainly would want to give those assurances in exchange for the good PR from Buffett’s deal. It would be noted in the administration’s files that Buffett was doing a “good citizen” thing with $5 billion dollars - so one would think that any assurances given to Buffett by this administration were intended to carry weight with the government beyond 2012.
Sounds perhaps a little precarious were it not for Buffett’s and the administration’s history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.