DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on October 12, 2011, 04:42:51 PM
-
Before Warren starts mouthing off about some people not paying enough taxes he should STFU and pay his $1 Billion in back taxes first.
Warren Buffett, President Obama’s pet billionaire, spends a great deal of time calling for tax increases on wealthy people. He began a recent New York Times op-ed, entitled “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich,” as follows:
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
That’s right, serfs: anything your benevolent “leaders” in Washington allow you to keep is a “blessing” that has been “showered” upon you. All money rightfully belongs to the State. It’s about time you spotted owls got with the program.
Funny thing is, it turns out Buffett was being… shall we say… disingenuous when he claimed his “leaders” never got around to asking for his “shared sacrifice.” His company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been fighting the IRS tooth and nail to avoid paying its federal tax bill for nearly a decade.
How much of the State’s rightful money has this hypocrite been clutching in a white-knuckled death grip? Oh, only about a billion dollars or so. Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government tallies up the bill:
Using only publicly-available documents, a certified public accountant (CPA) detailed Berkshire Hathaway’s tax problems to ALG researcher Richard McCarty. Now, the American people have a better idea of how much in back taxes the company could owe Uncle Sam.
According to page 56 of the company report, “At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, or about $1 billion. McCarty explained, “Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities. They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.”
He added, “The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.”
On top of this tax bill, figure the value of the time IRS agents have invested trying to collect it – they don’t work cheap, and we pay their salaries – and the resources Buffett’s people have invested fighting back. All of which would have been saved if Buffett simply practiced what he preached, and willingly handed over his fortune to the brilliant and compassionate “leaders” he commands the rest of us to support without resistance.
Warren Buffet is no different from the other liars and frauds orbiting Barack Obama. His hypocrisy just runs billions of dollars deeper. When it comes to “shared sacrifice,” you do the sacrificing, and they do the sharing.
-
But.....but.....I thought his secretary payed more in taxes than he did?? That it wasn't fair that she had to pay more. What's her tax liability.....$2 Billion?
-
But.....but.....I thought his secretary payed more in taxes than he did?? That it wasn't fair that she had to pay more. What's her tax liability.....$2 Billion?
I think it's fair to state that not only is the left liars but they are compulsive or even serial liars.
-
But.....but.....I thought his secretary payed more in taxes than he did?? That it wasn't fair that she had to pay more. What's her tax liability.....$2 Billion?
Apparently she did Pay more in taxes.
-
Apparently she did Pay more in taxes.
it must be like the definition of is. she isn't in a higher tax bracket; like unlike Warren and Timmy Geitner she just pays her taxes. I am getting tired of liberals not paying their taxes then getting chummy with Obama. You know Al Sharpton is in the same boat too.
-
There does seem to be a group of folks who think it perfectly OK to raise other peoples taxes while speaking of the virtues of equality and equal opportunity under the law.
-
There does seem to be a group of folks who think it perfectly OK to raise other peoples taxes while speaking of the virtues of equality and equal opportunity under the law.
Speaking of equal opportunity...how many blacks compared to whites go to tanning salons? Not many I suspect. So I wonder if that Tanning Salon Tax wasn't a little bit racist.
I say put a big fat tax (about the size of Michelle's ass) on Afro Sheen then sit back and watch the fireworks explode in Obama's voting block.
Afro sheen commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHo4UDCABUQ#)
-
LMFAO. So on the basis of statements made by an un-named CPA to a researcher named Richard McCarty, we conclude that Warren's company (not Warren the billionaire, his company) owes the govt $1 bill in taxes as of Dec. 10, 2010.
Leave it to our nutty right-wing, corporate-paid hacks to start foaming at the mouth when Warren says that he paid less taxes than his (I thought he said housekeeper, maybe he said) secretary. Yet what Warren says remains uncontradicted in any way shape or form - - he said HE (not his company) paid less in taxes than his secretary/housekeeper/whatever. So - - where's the beef?
Let's get back to the un-named CPA, on whose solitary advice, based on one page of the annual report, the researcher Richard McCarty has single-handedly determined Berkshire-Hathaway's tax liability to the Feds. I don't know who's overseeing the BH books and tax accounting, but I'll bet my ass it ain't a solitary nameless CPA and researcher McCarty. The determination of the exact tax liability is probably too complex for one CPA to determine, and as far as I can tell, the IRS hasn't started beating down BH's doors to repossess their assets for back taxes. Like every big business (and BH is not big business, it is huge, gigantic business)the determination of the actual taxes owed at any time is complex and usually subject to some kind of negotiation or process going on over time between the Feds and the company. BH is a publicly traded corporation on (I believe) the NYSE, and Buffett and the other directors have a fiduciary obligation to ALL the shareholders to pay the corporate taxes but not more than the proper amount owing for taxes, which requires due diligence on the part of the corporations Treasurer and his clerks, the corporate accountants and any outside consultants the Treasurer feels obligated to call in and review the books and report. If they simply paid over the billion dollars that this nameless schmuck thinks they owe in taxes, they could be liable to a shareholder lawsuit for breach of a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its shareholders.
The article is ridiculous for two reasons: failure to distinguish between Buffett's own tax obligations and BH's; and accepting as gospel the determination of some nameless schmuck CPA and a "researcher" as the final word on what BH owes in taxes, a determination which usually requires the efforts of many highly qualified experts.
-
The determination of the exact tax liability is probably too complex for one CPA to determine
There is a great endorsement for a very simple tax code.
9-9-9 here we come.
-
The determination of the exact tax liability is probably too complex for one CPA to determine
There is a great endorsement for a very simple tax code.
9-9-9 here we come.
according to XO that's a dangerous plan.
-
XO was probably being diplomatic. It's a moronic plan.
In Toronto, "999" is slang for the biggest psychiatric hospital in the city, with a special guarded wing for the criminally violent insane. Used to be at 999 Queen Street West, known at first as "999 Queen" and later just as "999." Finally the City changed the address of the hospital to a different number because of the stigma associated with "999." As in, "Oh, they sent him to 999."
So personally I think 999 is a great name for the plan.
-
Simplicity is the key and the virtue.
the harvest would be 3% less than thirty percent 6% less than one third of the economy, but would be too simple to be easily avoided or cheated .
I bet a few years down the road a tax cut could bring us down to tax plan 6-6-6.
-
<< . . . but would be too simple to be easily avoided or cheated .>>
[silently shakes head in wonder at the level of naivete on display here]
-
<< . . . but would be too simple to be easily avoided or cheated .>>
[silently shakes head in wonder at the level of naivete on display here]
You are welcome to display your naivete all you want.
Wasn't it you that said that the tax situation of a large corp was too complex for a single specialist to really understand?
So what advantage is conferred to who by the uneeded complexity?
I bet Warren insists on having simple questions answered about the bottom line , but the advantage of complexity seems to be that the tax in question is too hard to understand to be collected.
-
<<Wasn't it you that said that the tax situation of a large corp was too complex for a single specialist to really understand?>>
Sure but I never said that the tax code for such a corporation could ever be simplified or that if anyone tried to simplify it, that loopholes and issues could never be developed around the so-called simplified code.
<< So what advantage is conferred to who by the uneeded complexity?>>
Fairness. When the code is developed (and it's always growing, not shrinking, in complexity) unfairness develops in attempts to apply it uniformly; exceptions and clarifications have to be developed, giving rise to new opportunities to find loopholes and exemptions. What the advocates of "simplicity" fail to grasp is the almost infinite variation in circumstances from taxpayer to taxpayer. The "simpler" the tax code, the easier it is to find instances of gross unfairness between the taxpayers to whom the "simple" code is applied. For each instance of unfairness developed, new modifications need to be enacted; for each new modification, new loopholes can be found; for each loophole found, modifications are required to close the loophole, giving rise to new unfairnesses and new loopholes. Only a moron would think that a simple code can be found, or that if it results in gross and blatant unfairness, that this unfairness is going to be tolerated for the sake of simplicity. Cain appeals to those who either don't understand the real world or don't want to live in it. That's why is "simple" tax code is for morons only. It's for people who do not understand.
<< I bet Warren insists on having simple questions answered about the bottom line , but the advantage of complexity seems to be that the tax in question is too hard to understand to be collected.>>
Well, that's why numbers are negotiated between IRS and taxpayer all the time and if the negotiations fail, that is what the courts are for. No tax is too complicated to be collected. Right or wrong, some judge will decide the issue somewhere down the line, and once all the appeals are finished, there is a final answer, again right or wrong, on the table.
-
The advantage of this complexity falls strictly on the wealthy.
The more one is able to afford a staff of professionals , (Accountants and lawyers)
the more advantage accrues .
Whoever told you that complexity is in service of fairness was taking advantage of your credulity.
-
Well, that's why numbers are negotiated between IRS and taxpayer all the time and if the negotiations fail, that is what the courts are for. No tax is too complicated to be collected. Right or wrong, some judge will decide the issue somewhere down the line, and once all the appeals are finished, there is a final answer, again right or wrong, on the table.
This process is not free, nor fast.
And if it can be drawn out a long time the taxpayer who simply delays payment of a large amount is practicly getting a low interest loan.
The IRS has a very hard job , I don't really blame them for their poor track record for explaining the correct interpretation on help lines.
The complexity isn't necessacery and does not serve fairness, unless you mean that the more wealthy can get away with more as fairness.
-
<<Whoever told you that complexity is in service of fairness was taking advantage of your credulity.>>
LOL. I am not normally a very credulous person. I think what I was trying to convey was how complexity arose in the tax code. The code in its original form was relatively simple. In some cases, an across-the-board application of the code to all taxpayers caused unfairness, so modifications were required. Modifications were also required where special interests corrupted law-makers into doing favours for them. So not all modifications were done for fairness. However, fairness was a reasonable explanation for some of the modifications. The rest of what I said about how complexity arose in the code is generally correct, what I was describing was an ideal process, I guess what I left out was the constant meddling with the code on behalf of special interests and their corrupting influence, which took place alongside the legitimate successive modifications made for legitimate purposes.
-
I did not say 999 was dangerous. I said it was unworkable, naive, inadequate and simplistic, and will never be enacted.
Buffett has never said that he pays less in income taxes than his secretary. He has said that his income is taxed at a lower rate than hers, which, because he rarely sells stocks and often is taxed at the 15% capital gains rate, is probably true most years. Buffett knows about money. His accounting skills are far better than Kramer's or mine.
-
The only progressive tax we have is the income tax. Oh the unfairness of all the other taxes.
And when did the poor become eligible for special treatment? And what is the justification for doing so?
-
<<Whoever told you that complexity is in service of fairness was taking advantage of your credulity.>>
LOL. I am not normally a very credulous person. I think what I was trying to convey was how complexity arose in the tax code. The code in its original form was relatively simple. In some cases, an across-the-board application of the code to all taxpayers caused unfairness, so modifications were required. Modifications were also required where special interests corrupted law-makers into doing favours for them. So not all modifications were done for fairness. However, fairness was a reasonable explanation for some of the modifications. The rest of what I said about how complexity arose in the code is generally correct, what I was describing was an ideal process, I guess what I left out was the constant meddling with the code on behalf of special interests and their corrupting influence, which took place alongside the legitimate successive modifications made for legitimate purposes.
Now you have it and this is half the puicture.
The rest of the picture is that tax complexity is a legislative power and a breauocratic power. The power to penalise and reward with special taxes or special loopholes is a strong power that is prone to be abused. The powerfull commonly resist reduction of their power reguardless of the resulting confusion or unfairness.
It may be sold to the public as "fairness" but I am very sceptical .
-
<<And when did the poor become eligible for special treatment?>>
Special treatment? God forbid the poor get special treatment.
As Anatole France put it so well: "The law, majestic in its equality, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from sleeping in culverts and under bridges."
<<And what is the justification for doing so?>>
LMFAO. Questions that only a conservative could ask. Why do the big pumpkins cost more than the small pumpkins, mommy? Most normal people would feel a strange revulsion at the thought of taking half a loaf of bread from a poor man's table, but not at taking a whole loaf from a rich man. I think it's called empathy. We can feel the pain when a poor man and his family, stretched to their limits, are asked to contribute an extra $50 to the Treasury. We cannot feel the pain when a hedge fund manager and his family are asked to contribute an extra $50 bucks. That's just life. What is the "justification" for that feeling? There is no "justification." Basically, we are human beings, conservatives are not. We feel, they don't. If you were expecting some kind of complex Aristotelian explanation for this, don't bother. We're from one tribe, you're from the other tribe. We give a shit and you don't. End of story.
-
Well you can be as sarcastic as you like, but seriously why does what you have in your wallet determine your burden to the state when it comes to paying income taxes but doesn't mean a thing when you pay payroll taxes or ad valurum taxes or even sales taxes?
I mean if poverty is so virtuous why not apply the lesser burden to all taxes? Apparently your empathy is half-hearted.
-
<<Well you can be as sarcastic as you like, but seriously why does what you have in your wallet determine your burden to the state when it comes to paying income taxes but doesn't mean a thing when you pay payroll taxes or ad valurum taxes or even sales taxes?
<<I mean if poverty is so virtuous why not apply the lesser burden to all taxes? Apparently your empathy is half-hearted.
>>
Not really sure what you mean by payroll taxes. Here in Canada, we have "source deductions" in which an employer holds back a certain sum from each paycheque and then pays quarterly remittances to the federal government on behalf of each employee whose paycheque was cut. At the end of the year, the employer provides a "T-4" slip to each employee for inclusion in his or her tax return, showing total salary paid, amount held back for income tax, for Canada pension plan and for Unemployment Insurance (now called Employment Insurance.) The amount held back from each paycheque depends on the employee's annual pay rate. The ones earning more get more held back from each cheque.
Not sure what ad valorem taxes really are either.
Sales taxes are grossly unfair to the poor and are regularly attacked for being so. There is no justification for sales taxes in their present form, but they're great for raising $$$ for the government. One way the unfairness has been mitigated is a rebate system whereby tax-payers get back a rebate depending on income, the lower the income, the bigger the rebate.
-
Payroll taxes are for social security and medicare deducted at the same percentage rate no matter the annual salary rate. On Social Security there is a cap ( 100k) or there about over which no Social Security Taxes are deducted. I don't believe Medicare has a cap.
Withholding tax is basically a prepayment on expected income taxes.
Ad Valorem taxes are for motor vehicle taxes which again are charged at the same percentage rate no matter the worth of the vehicle.
Property taxes are collected in the same manor. The collecting agency sets the millage rate which then is applied to the current valuation of the dwelling minus homestead exemptions. the millage rate is the same for a 100k home as it is for a million dollar home.
Sales taxes are also collected at the same percentage rate no matter the purchase.
No progressive taxation in any of those.
But income tax is different. If you earn less than x amount you are charged y percentage. If you earn more than x you are charged z percentage. And i don't understand why that is.
-
But income tax is different. If you earn less than x amount you are charged y percentage. If you earn more than x you are charged z percentage. And i don't understand why that is.
Are you serious that you don't understand why it is?
Isn't the answer to that question exactly what Obama is saying? Which is people that make more money have to pay more taxes. That isn't hard to understand. And if you listen to Obama and Democrats run around the country and speak to groups saying such things you will see that he/they don't say that to rich people during those appearances, they/he says it to not so rich people. The reason is so he/they can use the tax codes and the IRS to get Democrats elected to office.
-
But income tax is different. If you earn less than x amount you are charged y percentage. If you earn more than x you are charged z percentage. And i don't understand why that is.
Could it be a shell game?
If you earn less than x you probly rent .
If you earn more than x you probly have a mortgage.
Mortgague interest is tax deductable , rent is not.
Progressive taxes are a way for the middle to subsidise the upper while they think the upper is paying more (but they arn't).
The lesser earner thinks that with earned income credit he pays nothing , but of course he is still paying for Social Security with no progressive advantage , and that money is directed to the general fund .
So there we are , a tax code of massive unfairness that is capricious in its application but so complex in details that no one is sure that they have been cheated or that they have really paid their fair share.
-
But income tax is different. If you earn less than x amount you are charged y percentage. If you earn more than x you are charged z percentage. And i don't understand why that is.
Are you serious that you don't understand why it is?
Isn't the answer to that question exactly what Obama is saying? Which is people that make more money have to pay more taxes. That isn't hard to understand. And if you listen to Obama and Democrats run around the country and speak to groups saying such things you will see that he/they don't say that to rich people during those appearances, they/he says it to not so rich people. The reason is so he/they can use the tax codes and the IRS to get Democrats elected to office.
I don't understand why people buy into the justification for it. Mikey calls it empathy for the poor, i think it is all about envy of the rich and sticking it to them.
-
Progressive income tax rates are obviously about empathy for the poor because they have the least amount of discretionary income and cutting into that pushes them closer to the point where they have to make basic choices like food versus rent, new shoes for the kids versus medicine, etc. Those choices excite a lot more sympathy than Virgina Beach versus St. Bart's or Lexus versus BMW.
Once you get into property taxes, automobile taxes, etc. you are talking about people who can downsize if they can't afford the tax, or keep the property but compromise on some other luxury item, but when they are property or automobile owners, the tax usually won't affect them as starkly as an income tax will affect people in the lowest brackets.
I'm not sure about payroll taxes - - I think OK at the same rate for the guy making minimum wage as for the guy making big bucks because they all get it back in the end in the form of pension income or benefits. If you were to cut the payroll tax for a minimum wage worker, wouldn't he get less in pension benefits when he retires?
And sales tax, I already said was unfair to the poor. The unfairness can be mitigated as in Canada by rebates to the lower brackets when they file their tax returns. Also by the exemption of some basic items like food and medicine from the sales tax. Across the board sales tax on all items without exception, and without rebates, would indeed be unfair to the poor, which I think is recognized by the fact that the government DOES rebate to the poor and DOES except milk, food, medicine, etc. from the sales tax.
-
Empathy my ass. If "they" were truly empathetic they wouldn't build ghetto slums nor would they allow schools to fail.
-
Afros have been out of style for over 20 years, and Afro Sheen is certainly not in use anymore by any significant number of Black women.
Tanning can give people skin cancer. Afro Sheen never harmed anyone.