Stop Coddling the Super Rich- Warren Buffett

? 'No where of course does he say I want to pay more in taxes,"

You can play games with what he is saying in the OpEd but you know he is saying tax the super rich more
He has said it plainly before including in this ABC interview
'"People at the high end, people like myself should be paying a lot more taxes," he said in a video snippet released by ABC. "We have it better than we've ever had it."The Link

Yet he has strucured his company so as to not pay taxes. He doesn't have to structure it like that yet he chooses to.
 
Bronco- while the number of people who earn $1MM plus and earn a part of that from carried interest or capital gains is probably less than 10,000- the number of billions they take home at the 15% interest rate is staggering, and over time does make a needed dent in the overall budget deficit. Apologies because I can't find the article, and have tried, but I think the WSJ once wrote that if this carried interest was changed to 30%, just the top 20 hedge fund managers alone would bring in more than $100B/year in new revenue. Then, don't forget the private equity, advisory, M&A and Ibankers who typically take advantage of this.

6721- I think you just don't want to think anything other than Warren is a secret liberal conspirator and his views on managing money are wrong. Between you two, and don't take this personally- I'm going to go with Mr. Buffett's word and advice.
 
6721 - Just wondering, did you miss my question again?

If you think this is hypocritical, what do you think of Congressmembers who argued against the stimulus in its entirety (for one example), but then argued for those funds in their district?
 
johnnym
If you directed a question to me I missed it. You know I don't shy away from exchanging thoughts.
To your question;
I don't see any eqiuvalency or relevance.

If you are using a congressperson or persons who voted against the stimulus, who are they and what did them they ask in funds for their state.
Perhaps if you can explain how you think they equate or how it is relevant and it makes sense to me I will answer.
 
They are equivalents for this reason:

You have said:

"Buffet or someone like him announces he wants to pay more, then someone on here posts that
BUT they NEVER do pay more to the Treasury.
If these people sincerely cared they would have sent more each year.
BS is all it is "

"has Buffet or any who beg to be taxed more actually sent more in as they can do? what about obama who admitted he had " hundreds of thousands of dollars I don't need." Did he send in extra in?

Until they do this is all BS "

"if they really mean it put their money where their mouth is.walk their talk
bet no one will "

I'll stop there. You are clearly making the argument that since Buffet has the ability to pay more, and since he thinks people in his situation should pay more, he should pay more or STFU about taxes.

You do not believe he should be able to benefit from today's tax rates if he thinks they ought to be different. You believe he is accepting something from the government (the current rate) that he vocally doesn't believe he (or anyone in his situation) should get - and that this makes him a hypocrite.

Similarly, in the stimulus situation, there were many Congresspeople who argued against the stimulus in its entirety. They called it wasteful spending, the destruction of the economy, etc etc. Yet some of these people then lined up to get their piece of the pie and lobbied for that pie. Thus, they accepted something from the government that they vocally did not believe they (or anyone else) should get.

Couldn't it be said that if they really cared about spending they would have rejected those funds?

Couldn't it be said that if they want to talk the low spending talk, they ought to walk the low spending walk?

Is that clear, or do you still not understand?
 
Tax changes aren't just mathematical, they are systemic. The wealth concentration that has led to the top 1% paying an extraordinary % of the income tax pie and the bottom 50% paying nothing is due in large part to the historically low tax rates the top earners have enjoyed for decades. We have to stop that trend.
 
What motivates non wealthy people to advocate on behalf of the wealthy (who incidentally, are more than capable of advocating for themselves) while ignoring inequities in the tax burdens of the wealthy and the non wealthy?
 
johnnym
I am flattered you quoted so many of my remarks.

Could you alsopoint out an elected Pol by name and exaxtly what simulus money they asked for?

So far I do not see any equivalency .
 
Why do you not see any equivalency? Just curious how they differ to you.

It's not about a specific pol or a specific request (although there are some), it is more about your philosophy on when you hold people to your "walk the talk" line of thinking. My guess is that you are fairly lenient when the pol/person is someone you agree with and fairly caustic when they are someone you disagree with. You are proving my point actually.
 
McBrett, WB says in his op-ed that the first order of business is to rein in entitlement spending, then close the loopholes for the super rich. While most voters would agree with his call for closing the loopholes, relatively few would agree with cutting entitlements. Therein lies the problem. We have created a very large entitlement class in this country that wants their check from the government as long as the taxes that support it come from someone else. Until we have pols that are willing to face this career ending dilemma we are doomed. Whether it takes the Tea Party or the CEO of Starbucks to force the necessary discussions and decisions that must be made, more power to them. I'm sick and tired of fat pols who fail to do their duty and indications are I'm not alone.
 
6721 - so you only consider "walk the talk" when it's Buffet talking about taxes, and elected officials aren't expected to do the same? got it.
 
This is what carried interest is:

It applies to anyone with connections to a fund's performance- usually in the Private Equity, Hedge Fund or Public Domain Funds such as Vanguard etc.

Most senior members of these funds get paid a base salary which is taxed normally- it might be anywhere from 150k-500k. However the vast majority of their income comes from their shared percent of the fund's carried interest.

So- if a fund promises an 8% return to their clients, or LPs, then the senior members of the fund typically receive 20% of the cash flows on the fund's investments once they first achieve this 8% hurdle. So, if the fund is say, $800MM big, has a 12% return- we are talking about tens of millions of dollars that is split up amongst the senior members of the fund's management. If the fund returns 8% or worse- there is no carried interest.

This part of their salary is currently taxed at a 15% rate, whereas their base salary is taxed at 32 or 34% etc. So- in many cases, up to 80 or 90% of the compensation is taxed at 15% for a weighted average tax rate of 18 or 19%- as WB mentioned in his Op-Ed.

I personally am aware of through my work- of 10 senior people who earn around $3-5MM/year, with base salaries of around 300k. So for them around 90-95% of their salaries are taxed at half the rate. They are not paying around $700k/year in taxes because of this loophole. Thus- the jackasses I work with (all but 1 or 2) are skimping out on close to $7MM to the Fed because of this tax loophole.

So, this is kind of a big deal.
 
Taxing capital gains is not the "right thing to do" because the income has already been taxed at the corporate level. The capital gains tax should be zero. It is a second-tier of taxation and it is unfair.
 
So we should listen to WB, but not Steve Wynn? Hmm..wonder why that is?
rolleyes.gif
 
WB is not being honest. He's not lying but he's misrepresenting what he actually pays. He doesn't mention all of the taxes he pays. When he pays his corporate tax he is paying around 45% in taxes.
 
If you are a stockholder in a Sub-S corporation, for example, the income is not taxed at the corporate level. In that case, the shareholder pays at the personal rate and there is no capital gains tax. One tax - as fair. We penalize corporations and their stockholders with double taxation. Can we raise the rate of the double tax? Of course we can, but it just makes American corporations less attractive to investors. Then people as why you're investing offshore. Well, there's a reason.
 
mcbrett, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. What ever WB profits on rather it be him personally or his business dealing he is paying taxes on. Doesn't matter if it's in his name or not the government is getting about 45% from WB. If I own a business not in my name and it's profit is 10 mil a year and you are are working minimum wage at the sonic, I can pay myself minimum wage (only) and we pay the same in income tax. Does that mean were worth the same?
 
We're not arguing, we're discussing- at least I am.

If you own a company that earns $10Mil/year in income, and you pay yourself minimum wage, your NET WORTH is huge, but your income and income taxes are small. The day you sell your company is the day you owe big taxes on your big income.

You said WB was dishonest because his firm pays taxes on their profits. If you read his Op-Ed, he was referring to what 99% of Americans rely on- which is income. WB's net-worth is in the billions and if he were to sell everything tomorrow he'd owe a lot in taxes. However, that is not controversial, and no one is discussing that really.
 
mcbrett,

What you say is true but that doesn't change the fact that his investments has to pay quarterly taxes. If you count that he is truely paying around 45% in taxes. He is misrepresenting what he really pays in taxes. I understand you trying to separate the two but in reality you can't.
 
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