Buffett's company pwes back taxes.

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
from link
"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.


Read more:The Link

let the excuses begin
 
I like how you employ the modern ‘pwn’ usage of the verb. It shows how edgy and l33t you are—hip-trendy cat and a phat kicky dawg, yo. Except this particular spelling means to rule, dominate or conquer. Otherwise you totally embody the digital zeitgeist, Poindexter.


dionysus-2.gif
 
Dion
So it is the use of " pwes" that so conerns you it overwhelms you to the point you have no opinion on the topic?

If I change the word to " owes" would you then be able to offer an opinion on the topic?
 
chango
see if you can remember who it was who said he should be paying more taxes,
can You?


edit to add

when Buffett stops pretending he really thinks he should be taxed more there won't be anymore of his stupid laments.


also I will change the title thread to see if Dion actually has an opinion on the topic.

second edit
Taxes. not raxes. geesh typing isn't that hard most of the time
 
Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway are two separate entities.

Warren Buffet says that wealthy individuals, like himself, should pay a higher tax rate - like the one that existed from the '40's-late '70's when the U.S. experienced one of the most successful economic periods among almost all levels of earners in its history.

Berkshire Hathaway is not Warren Buffet, but a corporate entity, that is subject to different means and levels of taxation than individuals.

It's a real distinction that seems to be missed by the obtuse.

It's almost as stupid as saying that raising taxes on wealthy individuals will harm jobs. Wealthy individuals aren't hiring the labor force, corporations are.
 
Do the wealthy intermingle their personal funds and taxes with their corporate interests? I thought one incorporated to separate the personal from the commercial.

Would a tax on salaries or dividends significantly impact a corporation's outlays for capital and labor? I don't see how. That seems to be the context for the remarks you criticize.
 
Roma I was picking on you more than anything. I get your point, but don't forget that 2/3 of the jobs are small business and many of those are not incorporated. For the thousands of companies with 50 or fewer employees, it could mean the difference between hiring or not.
 
Well, I was just trying to stick to the main point of the OP and what I agreed with in TxState's post. Still not sure that I feel refuted (refudiated?) by the small business statistics unless your suggesting that small businesses are owned by the wealthy as personified by Buffet.
 
Separate or not..He's still in charge of Hathaway. So don't talk about somebody or some corporation paying their fair share, when you and your company are not doing the same. Maybe if Hathaway would pay up, Uncle Warren wouldn't need to jump on his soapbox.

It's truly amazing how some people are willing to look the other way, just score cheap political points.
 
BrothaHorn,

What's amazing is WB uses his business to effect how much he pays personally so he can make that claim and some act as if it's not fair to bring his business into the discussion.

This is not even talking about his real agenda in wanting taxes raised. He benefits the most when people can't pay taxes.
 
rv
childish, cheap ,inaccurate and unncecssary.

I may disagree with you, in fact I do most of the time but I don't take cheap shots at you while addressing another poster.
 
Don't mistake my laughter at Buffet's tax hypocrisy as outrage.

If you were not interested in cheap points and blind denial, you could acknowledge that as the head of BH, Buffet is responsible for making sure HIS company pays their 'fair share' of taxes. As head of the company, he is ultimately responsible for what the company does.

It's also funny and telling how you keep trying to use the 'it's not the same' button. How can someone in good conscientious talk about wanting to pay more in taxes, when his company hasn't even paid what it owes? A rational person would at least question that. A person in denial, more interested in cheap political points would find some way to dismiss it.

I'm sure the great internet poster Roma Victa will have a snazzy reply. Can't wait to see it.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I have been thinking this over.

I think a lot of Buffett. Owned Berkshire stock for a long time. I know he's a big-D democrat. But I'll make this distinction between these issues.

Buffett is lobbying for higher individual tax rates. He could send it all in, if he chose -- he obviously hasn't. But that's for him as an individual.

He runs Berkshire and must answer to stockholders. He owes them a fiduciary duty to run the company as best he can. That means paying as low a tax as he can.

The fact that the taxes haven't been settled for several years means little. Big corporations often have long-standing disputes over taxes.
 
BIH
"That means paying as low a tax as he can. of course you owe your shareholders a fiduciary responsibility
BUT within the law/ regulations.
and of course businesses go to the edge and over to not pay more than they need to but their CEO's aren't whining over and over they aren't paying enough

I know you understand Buffett IS BH and he keeps saying over and over he does not pay enough
yet his company hasn't paid what the gov't thinks it owes for over 9 years.
maybe if he had BH pay what the IRS says BH owes for say years 2002-2007, as a way to show he really does think people should obery the tax laws and show he really does think those that can pay more should pay more
then he could go back and fight to get his taxes for those years reduced but in the meantime the govt would have the hundreds of millions to use.

Walking the talk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top