Author Topic: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes  (Read 3538 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« 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.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2011, 04:58:48 PM »
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?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2011, 05:11:07 PM »
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.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2011, 09:12:17 PM »
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.

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2011, 09:22:26 PM »
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.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2011, 09:43:06 PM »
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.


Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2011, 10:07:14 PM »
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

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2011, 10:16:52 PM »
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. 

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2011, 10:33:19 PM »
 
Quote
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.

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2011, 10:35:54 PM »
Quote
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.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2011, 10:48:02 PM »
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.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2011, 11:09:12 PM »
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.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2011, 11:20:21 PM »
 << . . . but would be too simple to be easily avoided or cheated .>>

[silently shakes head in wonder at the level of naivete on display here]

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2011, 11:24:56 PM »
<< . . . 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.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe Warren should pay his $1 Billion in back taxes
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2011, 11:49:58 PM »
  <<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.