Users who Dugg This
Terry A. Hurlbut
2953 Followers
Russ Smith
18390 Followers
amaoicanJan 30, 2012
1. Warren doesn't own B-H - he has a minority stake.
2. B-H does not already owe $1 billion. They are in an audit process. The final determination has yet to be made how much they owe, if anything. B-H has set aside $1 billion as the maximum amount they may need to pay. Presumably, they know how what's being challenged, and what the statutory penalties would be if all of the challenges are judged against them, and can thus determine the maximum possible liability.
My mom went through an audit process a while back, due to an error she made in the IRS' favor. It took years to get the matter completely settled because of the way the error affected future returns. Because of the penalties, it wasn't clear until the end whether they would ultimately owe her money or she would ultimately owe them money.
crunchdiggFeb 1, 2012
yeah, the "Buffett owes $XBillion in back taxes" lie has gotten really old. It's been repeated so many times that the right can't react to the facts on the matter any more.
amaoicanFeb 1, 2012
Agreed. We all know that a tax increase hurts regardless of how much you can afford it, but it hurts a lot less than the presently available alternatives (e.g. larger deficits and/or cutting into the bone of social services).
mikewindekJan 30, 2012
Why don't we just raise capital gains tax rate for those who make millions? That way we don't hurt the poor or middle class who also invest and save...
http://ratracefreedom.net/
pivenJan 31, 2012Submitter
Good idea. That should happen.
The income tax started at an one percent rate and only for the super rich - then the politicians got greeedy and it blew up to our current mess; and the AMT that was supposed to only tax the rich - now also sucks in the middle class.
These taxes should be indexed for inflation : they are not so the government gets a huge windfall.
Dividends often are taxes twice - for our convenience and the governments benefit.
Graf_OrlockJan 31, 2012
"These taxes should be indexed for inflation : they are not so the government gets a huge windfall."
But if they are percentage based, they are indexed for inflation. If you're referring to the AMT, agreed -- though perhaps streamlining the tax code and eliminating most deductions would achieve the same goal.
barackalypseJan 31, 2012
Why don't we just spend less and everybody can have lower taxes?
ajobstJan 31, 2012
It's pretty simple. Ordinary income is progressive. They could make Capital gains progressive. It pulls in the Buffetts, those getting massive carried interest, etc., without complex calculations related to a new "super AMT", or completely changing partnership taxation.
I would also be in favor of indexing the cost basis of capital investments to inflation. Why should an investor pay capital gain on something that simply went up in value with inflation?
rickhagarJan 31, 2012
We do not have a revenue problem we have an out-of-control spending problem.
herurubinJan 30, 2012
without Warren Buffet we wouldn't have any Orange Julius stands at crappy malls. He's a national treasure for gawd's sake
stevanoskiJan 30, 2012
LOL
odkinJan 30, 2012
I wish someone who reported facts for a living would demand ACTUAL NUMBERS to back up Buffets' claims. But todays' "journalists" aren't interested in being reporters. They just want to publicize their favored narratives.
sheopleherderJan 30, 2012
I do commend Buffet for giving away Billions years ago... But why isn't anyone mentioning that the Capital gains tax system is setup to benefit the already wealthy...?
ajobstJan 31, 2012
My two questions for Buffett (actually my co-worker's questions):
If the government is an efficient user of our (US Citizens') capital, then why did you go through such lengths to make sure you donated all your wealth to the Gates Foundation so that the US government doesn't get any of it?
If the government is not an efficient user of our (US Citizens') capital, then why are you suggesting that we feed the beast (increasing taxes) rather than starving the beast?
crunchdiggFeb 1, 2012
nice try. "if (irrelevant thing) why A? if (not irrelevant thing) then why B-that-is-not-true?"
How about "if we are running a deficit, why are you advocating increasing the government's income stream?" Oh.
FYI "spending is going to have to come down" - Warren Buffett
http://www.valuewalk.com/2011/11/warren-buffett-increase-taxes-cut-spending/#.TymVOJgSN5g
pivenJan 30, 2012Submitter
If not for their double- standards, they would have no standards at all.
In related news -- The Buffett Tax Rule Won't Apply to Warren Buffett
nickchopperJan 30, 2012
You remind me of the line from the old Hee-Haw (TV show) song: "If it weren't for bad luck, we'd have no luck at all."
pivenJan 30, 2012Submitter
Buffett and Obama are doing well on their dog and pony show to fool the public / rob the naive taxpayers.
They would fit right in on Hee-Haw
Graf_OrlockJan 30, 2012
They had jackasses on that show too, right?
bwiiiJan 31, 2012
Being that Buffet's Secretary has been leveraged for use as a campaign prop, she is now fair game and she needs to be "Joe The Plumber'd"..!
caseycooldJan 30, 2012
I believe this is the right going "we don't like your facts so we are going to terrorize you until you go away!"
rickhagarJan 31, 2012
Increasing taxes on capital gains would be suicidal. That money is used to invest in companies that create jobs. Once they start fooling with capital gains it will greatly diminish the creation of jobs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockJan 31, 2012
but but but 1%!
jrock080692Jan 31, 2012
We need to focus on taxing churches and other institutions we let slip under the radar rather than worry about the current tax situation which isn't going to change Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.