DC Tom Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Where do you think an investment tycoon gets his money - a lemonade stand? Well, Minute Maid Lemonade is a Coca Cola brand...and Coke is a quarter of Berkshire Hathaway's portfolio...
Magox Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) You and that Rob's House idiot are vomiting up political points, not economic reality. Classic! If you read Buffet's actual editorial he says total federal taxes, not just income taxes. He is including payroll taxes. It is funny though that the guy who actually makes billions says tax me (us) more, but the tools still argue against him. He suggests that the top rate be increased on income of $1 million, and a further bump for the really rich bastards over $10 million. Way to go Warren! He is more than welcome to visit here. Until he does so, his words really don't mean too much. Actions speak louder than words. Also, when he came out against the Health Insurance Bill, I didn't see any of you yahoo's point to his opinion there. Where were you guys then? That is my point. Total taxation. C'mon boss man you are smarter than that. Sorry Booster, you're losing this argument, time to call it a day. Edited August 16, 2011 by Magox
Booster4324 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 Sorry Booster, you're losing this argument, time to call it a day. I have to work today anyway.
Dante Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 God you are a !@#$ing idiot. Nice. Just keep getting sucked into the hackneyed class warfare line of ****. It really works in Britain doesn't it. It really worked in the USSR as well. Evidence is all around you today and in history. But if you are a jealous, envious troll you won't see because you don't want to. It's easier to have someone else to blame for either your own deficiencies or lack of achievement. ""Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." ~Winston Churchill
birdog1960 Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Also, when he came out against the Health Insurance Bill, I didn't see any of you yahoo's point to his opinion there. Where were you guys then? so, one has to accept all of anothers positions to accept any of them? never heard that before...probably because it's ridiculous. Nice. Just keep getting sucked into the hackneyed class warfare line of ****. It really works in Britain doesn't it. It really worked in the USSR as well. Evidence is all around you today and in history. But if you are a jealous, envious troll you won't see because you don't want to. It's easier to have someone else to blame for either your own deficiencies or lack of achievement. ""Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." ~Winston Churchill buffet has no incentive to engage in class warfare and i really doubt he's envious or jealous of anyone.. if anything he has ample disincentive. and what of the significant number of upper middle class and above who support similar policies? do they want class warfare? are they envious and jealous? better think up some new reasons to dismiss them. Edited August 16, 2011 by birdog1960
Magox Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 so, one has to accept all of anothers positions to accept any of them? never heard that before...probably because it's ridiculous. When it supports your argument, it's ok, but when it doesn't, you don't accept it. That's fine, but most of us understand this is just a convenient argument you made to support your ideology.
Dante Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 so, one has to accept all of anothers positions to accept any of them? never heard that before...probably because it's ridiculous. buffet has no incentive to engage in class warfare and i really doubt he's envious or jealous of anyone.. if anything he has ample disincentive. and what of the significant number of upper middle class and above who support similar policies? do they want class warfare? are they envious and jealous? better think up some new reasons to dismiss them. Not talking about Buffet. He looks like a senile old !@#$ anyway. Who knows what going through his head. I was talking about you and people who are looking for someone or something to get mad at.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 This is incorrect. The reason he gets away with this rhetoric is because 35% of the profit is already being given to the govt. before they cut his check. Add in his 15% and you get a 50% tax rate. So, no - your tax rate isn't higher. You can play stupid number games like this all day. Just tax corp profits at 50% - eliminate cap gains for the individual and what do you get? The govt gets the same amount. Buffet gets the same amount after tax, but his "total federal tax rate" is now like 2%. Yet there isn't a single extra dollar in his pocket. That's fine, but he is using faulty rhetoric to make a point. If he wants to pay more taxes - he can cut the check. I won't argue. This argument is wrong, also. You are the one playing the numbers game. His secretary is also a member of the corporation and so, using your logic, her company pays 35% on its profits and then she pays it on her wages also=70%. 70>50 As to your queer little remark at the end, nice spin on on his argument, he is arguing that those who have the most should contribute the most. All of them, not just him. Oh GG darling, did you answer my question about tax cuts and revenue increases? Or are you ignoring me because I so enjoy rubbing your nose in the poo you drop out in regard to arguments? I do think its funny that after I gave you a good nose rubbing in it that you used the exact same argument about tax cuts increasing revenue, just that you did it for Clinton instead of Bush.
Taro T Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 This argument is wrong, also. You are the one playing the numbers game. His secretary is also a member of the corporation and so, using your logic, her company pays 35% on its profits and then she pays it on her wages also=70%. 70>50 ... So, by being a 'member of the corporation' she necessarily becomes an equity holder in the company but somehow her equity is paid to her as wages? That's truly impressive, you took his posting of '2+2=4;' disputed it; and came up instead w/ '2+2=kumquat.'
Magox Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 So, by being a 'member of the corporation' she necessarily becomes an equity holder in the company but somehow her equity is paid to her as wages? That's truly impressive, you took his posting of '2+2=4;' disputed it; and came up instead w/ '2+2=kumquat.' Truly, what did you expect?
ieatcrayonz Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 So, by being a 'member of the corporation' she necessarily becomes an equity holder in the company but somehow her equity is paid to her as wages? That's truly impressive, you took his posting of '2+2=4;' disputed it; and came up instead w/ '2+2=kumquat.' I realize people on here deserve criticism for their bad math and posting while stoned and the like but there is no need to be vulgar. Beerboy has shut down threads for less.
GG Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Oh GG darling, did you answer my question about tax cuts and revenue increases? Or are you ignoring me because I so enjoy rubbing your nose in the poo you drop out in regard to arguments? I do think its funny that after I gave you a good nose rubbing in it that you used the exact same argument about tax cuts increasing revenue, just that you did it for Clinton instead of Bush. I didn't answer your question because I ignore you like the brown stuff I sometimes see on the sidewalks. In case you don't now it, you rarely make sense, just like the rambling statement above, including the totally incoherent and 100% incorrect assumption about wages paid and after-tax profits earned. Edited August 16, 2011 by GG
Taro T Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Truly, what did you expect? Not sure actually. Probably something more along the lines of '2+2=-3.5' I didn't expect to see him knock that one out of the ballpark. I realize people on here deserve criticism for their bad math and posting while stoned and the like but there is no need to be vulgar. Beerboy has shut down threads for less. Sorry 'bout that. Should've known the googlebot would take issue. Would you have preferred 'moo goo gai pan?'
ieatcrayonz Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Sorry 'bout that. Should've known the googlebot would take issue. Would you have preferred 'moo goo gai pan?' That is a little advanced for amateurs. Heck Beerboy only uses that move on code name Posey. Edited August 25, 2011 by ieatcrayonz
UConn James Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 Taxpayers Should Be Leery Of Warren Buffett's Faux Noblesse Oblige Although the rich may not notice the difference, the middle-class and poor pay the price. How high the potential price may be is illustrated by the 1990 budget deal. To raise revenue, the Democratic Congress targeted the rich with a luxury tax on such expensive goods as boats that sold for more than $100,000, jewelry and expensive cars. But, the actual consequences were born by several hundred thousand middle-class people who lost their jobs and businesses when the demand for these now-higher-tax goods fell sharply – by 70% in the case of luxury boats. Three years later, Senate Majority Leader and liberal democrat George Mitchell led the successful effort to repeal this tax because thousands of his middle-class constituents in Maine had suffered disproportionately from the collapse in the boating industry. Moreover, the lost revenue from the incomes that were no longer earned, and the increased government transfer payments to the now unemployed meant the luxury tax was a money loser for the government as well. Everyone lost except the rich, who simply bought their yachts outside the U.S. The consequences of higher capital gains tax rates that Mr. Buffett advocates would be even worse.
Rob's House Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 This argument is wrong, also. You are the one playing the numbers game. His secretary is also a member of the corporation and so, using your logic, her company pays 35% on its profits and then she pays it on her wages also=70%. 70>50 As to your queer little remark at the end, nice spin on on his argument, he is arguing that those who have the most should contribute the most. All of them, not just him. Oh GG darling, did you answer my question about tax cuts and revenue increases? Or are you ignoring me because I so enjoy rubbing your nose in the poo you drop out in regard to arguments? I do think its funny that after I gave you a good nose rubbing in it that you used the exact same argument about tax cuts increasing revenue, just that you did it for Clinton instead of Bush. This is what I think of when I read your posts:
Recommended Posts