If you read the entire Short Term Stock Trading" Thread you would see that I've been critical of Buffet for way before he came out with the "Buffet Tax".
I use to like the guy, but he is crony capitalist #1 IMO.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!
- Thread starter Anti
- Start date
- Status
I use to like the guy, but he is crony capitalist #1 IMO.
I have little reason to defend the guy. For all I know he could be a shyster.
I consider Buffet to be Obama's lapdog.
What he calls tax increase is just ridiculous. Show me one time when after tax increases ever extanded for corporations. They want to tax the "rich"? what the fuck are you talking about? =D WHAT RICH? there are no rich people on this planet. There are rich Banks and Corporations. If you're a smart lad you will want to start a legal entity to protect your wealth. So when they are saying shit like taxing the rich - it's just a play to suck more out of the middle class...
if he really wanted to "tax the rich" he would speak of actually changing the corporate tax laws. But no, that's not what he is talking about. He wants to "tax the rich".
Buffet is the biggest insider in america and there is a reason why he's not punished. Why else would he insert those 5bil into plunging BoA? Exactly because he met Obama just a day before
BoA is Bearstearns that's for certain. They aren't going to allow any more lehmanbros. See what they did to Dexia.
What he calls tax increase is just ridiculous. Show me one time when after tax increases ever extanded for corporations. They want to tax the "rich"? what the fuck are you talking about? =D WHAT RICH? there are no rich people on this planet. There are rich Banks and Corporations. If you're a smart lad you will want to start a legal entity to protect your wealth. So when they are saying shit like taxing the rich - it's just a play to suck more out of the middle class...
if he really wanted to "tax the rich" he would speak of actually changing the corporate tax laws. But no, that's not what he is talking about. He wants to "tax the rich".
Buffet is the biggest insider in america and there is a reason why he's not punished. Why else would he insert those 5bil into plunging BoA? Exactly because he met Obama just a day before
BoA is Bearstearns that's for certain. They aren't going to allow any more lehmanbros. See what they did to Dexia.
The top tenth of 1% consists of roughly 1500 individuals reporting incomes averaging $8 million each. 'Class warfare' is talking points against the progressive tax. Unless of course we're talking about diminishing middle-class incomes since 1973. You could easily argue the top has waged a sustained class war on the middle class and working poor.
Tell that to Bill Clinton. Obama's proposed marginal rate is the same as 1993-2000. Obama proposes continuing the income tax break to everybody under $200,000 until the economy shows signs of recovery.
It's real easy to observe your tax returns annually. If you get a rate increase, you'll be the first to know it. In fact, you don't have to wait to receive your forms, tax rates are published in advance. I get a lot of 'Obama raised my taxes' when in reality the reverse is true. The bottom 45 million income earners get an income tax break to stimulate the economy. They still have to pay payroll taxes (FICA). Not to mention the fact Congress extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone including the top.
Obama want's to increase the top individual rate from 35% to 39.5%. Obama wants to progressively increase everyone making $200,000 and up. Everybody else would remain with the same respective rate.
Well, think about it. BOA is suffering and needs cash. Buffet bought low with an eye to sell high. You know, make a profit? Buffet loaned money to Goldman Sachs during the bailout and received a better return than Uncle Sam. I recon one could argue he's the very idea of business savvy. Not to mention he plans to will his fortune to Bill and Melinda Gates.Buffet is the biggest insider in america and there is a reason why he's not punished. Why else would he insert those 5bil into plunging BoA? Exactly because he met Obama just a day before
Wall Street companies have ripped off each other since inception. Gramm Leach Bliley rescinded the firewall so they get to rip everybody off.
The idea was that top investment banks could generate more capital with main street money. You know, win/win scenarios. Didn't take but 7 years to learn the same promises of wealth for more people was just another get rich quick scheme for ~10,000 investment bankers in the US, Britain and Scotland.
If you own Berkshire Hathaway, you have sound investment. That's why 1 share will cost you better than 100k. One fucking share. You don't get figures like that with get rich quick shysters. Buffet's largely been making the right calls since 1967.
Last edited:
ok you are talking about percentages
I am talking tax laws. I bet you have an idea. A corporation doesnt pay its taxes the same way a single person does. Other forms of legal entities have their tax privileges for different purposes. All individuals and employed pay same types of taxes no matter what...thats the key reason why rich can afford getting richer.
ok you are talking about percentages
thats the key reason why rich can afford getting richer.
LOL. The rich can afford getting richer. That's rich.
Where are we going with this? I'm not arguing corporate taxes.
What's even funnier is Buffet's companies owe more than 1bil in backed taxes. So he wants everyone else to pay his taxes. Just not his companies.
There was a good interview with a very wealthy fellow who started the first "hedge fund" back in the 1980's on CNBC. He was mocking the talking heads who hold the "Oracle" in such high esteem. He said Buffet was a con man. Yes, he was a good stock picker who enjoyed the credit bubble. But this "Oracle of Omaha" fantasy borders on idolatry IMO.
There was a good interview with a very wealthy fellow who started the first "hedge fund" back in the 1980's on CNBC. He was mocking the talking heads who hold the "Oracle" in such high esteem. He said Buffet was a con man. Yes, he was a good stock picker who enjoyed the credit bubble. But this "Oracle of Omaha" fantasy borders on idolatry IMO.
You should be.
Individual taxation of 1500 ain't gonna pull us out of the hole.
IMO taxes are not the answer nor the problem.
Assuming taxes were the answer there needs to be corporate tax reform.
WWW.fairtax.org
Punitive progressive and value added taxes will compound the problem.
A prebated consumption tax is the answer.
If you want to kick the corporate social can down the road a bit you could simply increase tax rates on the top. You don't get to be at the top if you eat costs.
Business owners pass those costs on to the consumer they don't pay them we do!
Let's increase the cost of living on the middle class and keep their tax rate the same.
Not the best of ideas.
Eliminate loopholes! 26% of your bently's cost of purchase vs 26 off my '02 jeep
If you are fine enough to be labled an Accredited investor, you will want to invest as a legal entity. that will allow you to avoid a huge percentage of taxes.
You should be.
Individual taxation of 1500 ain't gonna pull us out of the hole.
IMO taxes are not the answer nor the problem.
Assuming taxes were the answer there needs to be corporate tax reform.
WWW.fairtax.org
Punitive progressive and value added taxes will compound the problem.
A prebated consumption tax is the answer.
If you want to kick the corporate social can down the road a bit you could simply increase tax rates on the top. You don't get to be at the top if you eat costs.
Business owners pass those costs on to the consumer they don't pay them we do!
Let's increase the cost of living on the middle class and keep their tax rate the same.
Not the best of ideas.
Eliminate loopholes! 26% of your bently's cost of purchase vs 26 off my '02 jeep
exactly what I meant to say. In reality, every time they wanna mess with tax - the middle class suffers. no matter the intentions. history proves. remember the 80s.
Just like individuals, corporations litigate their taxes.
Nice to know the world's 8th largest corporation pays taxes at all.
August 2011. Ain't that about the time you started giving Buffet a hard look? The Buffet Rule?
rootfingers
Active member
OCCUPY!
So whenever you guys get elected to congress I will love watching your ideas be debated and wish you luck. I truly don't know how you guys think we can have a country for 300 million people and not tax anyone.
I don't understand how you mucks can be sympathetic to the plight of very wealthy people - it is not fair they get taxed and all. This while children in your country go hungry and people die in the streets without healthcare.
Are you guys all that rich or are you just "going to be"? Your antisocial behavior goes against your genetic predisposition and you are making the pack angry. That is occupy at its heart! Still they say we are savages, the ones who need something, some whatever you are selling. Hypocrisy is all I see.
So whenever you guys get elected to congress I will love watching your ideas be debated and wish you luck. I truly don't know how you guys think we can have a country for 300 million people and not tax anyone.
I don't understand how you mucks can be sympathetic to the plight of very wealthy people - it is not fair they get taxed and all. This while children in your country go hungry and people die in the streets without healthcare.
Are you guys all that rich or are you just "going to be"? Your antisocial behavior goes against your genetic predisposition and you are making the pack angry. That is occupy at its heart! Still they say we are savages, the ones who need something, some whatever you are selling. Hypocrisy is all I see.
In this thread alone....
October 16th
Sept 19th
11 other threads
8 of which have been closed. Probably because of silly arguments with you.
Try telling whomever makes that argument. Wasn't me.
We agree, tax reform is very important. We're don't agree on the potential direction.IMO taxes are not the answer nor the problem.
Assuming taxes were the answer there needs to be corporate tax reform.
WWW.fairtax.org
Punitive progressive and value added taxes will compound the problem.
A prebated consumption tax is the answer.
If you want to kick the corporate social can down the road a bit you could simply increase tax rates on the top. You don't get to be at the top if you eat costs.
Business owners pass those costs on to the consumer they don't pay them we do!
Let's increase the cost of living on the middle class and keep their tax rate the same.
Not the best of ideas.
Eliminate loopholes! 26% of your bently's cost of purchase vs 26 off my '02 jeep
I don't waste time dreaming about membership status with Club Greed. I've heard all the spooky boos about higher taxes (but I've lived during higher taxes.) Being there and doing that trumps the politics of fear.
Accredited with a capital A. Isn't that a bit formal for the individual investor?
I don't do -
high risk
venture capital (seed money)
partner up
hedge funds
I do have a retirement plan that looks like your basic long term, low risk diversified portfolio of non-managed, low-cost index funds, bonds and cash. But thanks for the investment advice.
Yeah, I remember 1981. Reagan thought government was the problem. So he cut taxes so much he had to raise them every year thereafter. But he never eclipsed what was initially cut. So HW was cut from a second term when he moved to (if only partially) mitigate Reagan's deficit/debt mess.
I remember when Clinton raised the marginal rate to 39.5% (which included raises in other brackets.) Along with major welfare and military cuts, we paid off the Reagan/HW deficits and accumulated $236 billion in surplus. In addition, CBO (under the impression that working revenue structures would remain) projected enough sustained surpluses to pay off the national debt in just over 1 decade.
History proves, alright. It's the historians who are subject to scrutiny. IMO, those who pay less attention to statistics than ideology aren't the best at their respective craft.
I know things this complex aren't easy to perfect. But we can go a long way toward policies that actually work. They're just politically unpalatable for some.
Last edited:
Statistics have their place, but you know the saying. "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." Numbers can spun a thousand different ways to support any argument. For example, our official US Budget (balance sheet) does not include unfunded liabilities or the toxic debt held by Fannie and Freddie. No different from Enron or Worldcom, or etc etc accounting.
IMO, good historiography analyzes events in historical context while simultaneously recognizing the context of the historian's ideology and what bearing it may have on their perception of said events. A good historian shouldn't take statistics at face value realizing that publishers of statistics often have an agenda that they wish to support.
Well said. I'm not an economist yet I don't limit my sources of info to like ideas alone. That said my conclusions aren't exactly scientific, lol. At some point I have to look at the pros and cons of each aspect we've tried in the past. I guess I just don't believe in supply side economics. That's a broad brush, I might actually agree with some components of supply side but not cumulatively.
At some point I have to look at the pros and cons of each aspect we've tried in the past. I guess I just don't believe in supply side economics. That's a broad brush, I might actually agree with some components of supply side but not cumulatively.
DB im not an economist either. I just study the system. And I also have great sources of informations to operate on. Nowadays you can figure out everything yourself if you have enough wit to filter the incoming information. That's what I am doing on daily basis now that Im unemployed.
But there are alot of suits who call themselves economists nowadays. They speak of inflation. They speak of bernanke sometimes too. Wallstreet? Oh yeah they kno how to throw criticisms that way too.
But the more I talk with those folks(some of them are actually Ph.Ds) the better I understand how they all think. They operate on what they already know... On what they were tought and what they tought themselves. Information they rely on isn't relevent in today's economy. Most of those guys don't really have a clue on what's going on. To be relevent you have to be up to date, you have to be in touch with information nonestop. SpasticGramps knows what I'm talking about.
As it was already said. By analysing the patterns you can figure out the intentions.
But there are alot of suits who call themselves economists nowadays. They speak of inflation. They speak of bernanke sometimes too. Wallstreet? Oh yeah they kno how to throw criticisms that way too.
But the more I talk with those folks(some of them are actually Ph.Ds) the better I understand how they all think. They operate on what they already know... On what they were tought and what they tought themselves. Information they rely on isn't relevent in today's economy. Most of those guys don't really have a clue on what's going on. To be relevent you have to be up to date, you have to be in touch with information nonestop. SpasticGramps knows what I'm talking about.
As it was already said. By analysing the patterns you can figure out the intentions.
Then why are you giving investment advice? None of it is relevant. I mention the individual rate being too low and you talk about corporate breaks, maneuvers, loopholes, whatever. You're talking around my argument. Not to mention how I personally invest has nothing to do with national revenue strategy.
Matching revenues to expenditures isn't rocket science. It's the 'lower taxes and the market will raise revenues' argument I pay little heed.
Economies can't sustain when they grow too fast. Remember the 90s when Greenspan actually raised interest rates when the economy heated up beyond sustainability? This mitigates too-fast growth that historically shows worse recessions when they occur.
Supply side counts on heat (and fans the flames.) No better proof than the worst recession since the great depression. Same thing happened in the 'roaring' 20s, too much growth in too few areas and concentrated too much at the top. The image is in the mirror but you don't have to look.
Google history of US recessions. Forget all the theory. Look at the events. America is historically replete with boom and bust cycles. But look at the period between 1932 and 1999. You won't see replete boom and bust because we knew the unchecked market forces that blow up... repeatedly.
Once again, market influence said, "Give us another chance, we won't break it this time." Only took 8 years.
Matching revenues to expenditures isn't rocket science. It's the 'lower taxes and the market will raise revenues' argument I pay little heed.
Economies can't sustain when they grow too fast. Remember the 90s when Greenspan actually raised interest rates when the economy heated up beyond sustainability? This mitigates too-fast growth that historically shows worse recessions when they occur.
Supply side counts on heat (and fans the flames.) No better proof than the worst recession since the great depression. Same thing happened in the 'roaring' 20s, too much growth in too few areas and concentrated too much at the top. The image is in the mirror but you don't have to look.
Google history of US recessions. Forget all the theory. Look at the events. America is historically replete with boom and bust cycles. But look at the period between 1932 and 1999. You won't see replete boom and bust because we knew the unchecked market forces that blow up... repeatedly.
Once again, market influence said, "Give us another chance, we won't break it this time." Only took 8 years.
Wait, what? Me giving an investment advice? Noway. I just told you about the common practice of how rich folks invest. Not too many sophisticated investors will ever do that as individuals. When I am talking about the Tax system I don't talk rates. Rates go up and down throughout the whole history. The taxing principles, however remain the same.
lower taxes? Nope, that's not the case. Different taxing laws. That's the case. I am sorry, I guess I am just somewhat lazy to explain hows and whys from the corporate tax perspective.
I can just say that the reason why there is such a huge difference in taxing laws is obvious to many dedicated people. It's the same old reason of 1215. That reason's name is Magna Carta. wiki it up. Great stuff.
Seriously, I am not trying to argue. I am just sharing the information that I have. I think it's relevent to the topic.
What I meant to say was shortly this:
Warren Buffet, when talking about "Taxing rich people" is just throwing dust into eyes to take away attention from the real issues. But that's just imo. based on strong sources of info, yet still imo only.
- Status
