Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Warren Buffett said it! >

Warren Buffett said it!

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Warren Buffett said it!

Old 08-15-2011, 04:00 AM
  #1  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Cougar Mag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southeast Central Illinois USA
Posts: 6,969
Default Warren Buffett said it!

The following is from Warren Buffett.............so what do you think now? The man certainly isn't stupid.

(Reuters) - Billionaire Warren Buffett urged lawmakers to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.
"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," The 80-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times.
Buffett, one of the world's richest men and chairman of conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc , said his federal tax bill last year was $6,938,744.
"That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.
Lawmakers engaged in a partisan battle over spending and taxes for more than three months before agreeing on August 2 to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling, avoiding a U.S. default.
"Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness," Buffett said.
Buffett said higher taxes for the rich will not discourage investment.
"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he said
"People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."
Cougar Mag is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 04:30 AM
  #2  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,742
Default

So cougar, you choose to vist once again.

Let me ask you, how much of a dent will that put in our 1.5 trillion dollar budget deficit?

What is the historical amount of revenue as a percentage of GDP that comes into the treasury each year dating back to the 1960?

How many jobs will the government create if it takes billions more out of the private sector and wastes it?
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 04:43 AM
  #3  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

Take (steal) every dime the richest 10% have (it will be a one-time shot, and the consequences would be huge) and what kind of dent would it put in the deficit?

Or how about this radical idea--quit spending money you don't have--it works for real people with real jobs in real life.

Chad
LBR is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 05:18 AM
  #4  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,742
Default

Warren is an investor not an economist by far. I've read 2 out of the 4 favorite books he loves. One is called "The Intelligent Investor". The other book is "Security Analysis". His other 2 book is one by Thomas Jefferson and the origonal author's book of "Inttelligent Investor" It had all the personal foot notes for revising the first edition.

Buffett is intelligent because he buys stocks that are under valued. That's his focus and not an economist. When he brags about having to pay less in taxes than his secretary, he's reffering to capital gains. I ask you, who is best to decide what to invest money in, the government or individual? If you say the government, please give us a break down on how the 1 trillion dollar stimulis bill was spent and what has been our ROI please.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 05:29 AM
  #5  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: On an Island in Vermont
Posts: 21,861
Default

I they ever hope to get back to a balanced budget it has to come via 2 ways. Cut sending first and then raise taxes. The shear size of government is eating away at any hope of recovery. I would like to see increased tax revenue come via a flat tax where everyone pays. Increasing a tax just on the rich isn't fair especially when about 47 percent of Americans don't pay federal tax. I have read that if everyone paid a 10% flat tax on their earnings it could create a lot more money coming in than the present system. I am not so sure that small amount would do it but perhaps 15% might work. Tax loop holes are eliminated and so are deductions which allow the rich to pay a lower percentage than many middle class people. Spending cuts need to be made as a first priority. Government needs to shrink and departments that hemorrhage money need to be eliminated. The troops need to come home, thus freeing up reservists to go back to work here in the US. Spending military money here would be a better way to stimulate jobs.

Borrowed from: The Brief Guide to the Flat Tax by Daniel Mitchell PHD


Unlike the current system, a flat tax is simple, fair, and good for growth. Instead of the 893 forms required by the current system, a flat tax would use only two postcard-sized forms: one for labor income and the other for business and capital income. Unlike the current system, which discriminates based on the source, use, and level of income, a flat tax treats all taxpayers equally, fulfilling the "equal justice under law" principle etched above the main entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court building. And unlike the current system, which punishes people for contributing to the nation's wealth, a flat tax would lower marginal tax rates and eliminate the tax bias against saving and investment, thus ensuring better economic performance in a competitive global economy.


Last edited by Champlain Islander; 08-15-2011 at 05:40 AM.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 05:30 AM
  #6  
Giant Nontypical
 
jeepkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ****ifornia
Posts: 5,052
Default

Well, I'm sure the IRS would be more then willing to accept a big fat donation from him...
jeepkid is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 05:36 AM
  #7  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Cool

Buffet proves himself wrong by his own analysis. He pays a lower percentage of his income in tax than his employees. This enables him to invest and provide more income for himself, provide the invested funds which allow his subject companies to grow and provide jobs. The money he doesn't pay in taxes allows him to employ people who earn an income and pay taxes.

If he turned that money over to the government, which he could do if he were genuinely sincere about his proposal, most of it would just be distributed to non-producers.
sachiko is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 05:45 AM
  #8  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: southwestern va
Posts: 753
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
Buffet proves himself wrong by his own analysis. He pays a lower percentage of his income in tax than his employees. This enables him to invest and provide more income for himself, provide the invested funds which allow his subject companies to grow and provide jobs. The money he doesn't pay in taxes allows him to employ people who earn an income and pay taxes.

If he turned that money over to the government, which he could do if he were genuinely sincere about his proposal, most of it would just be distributed to non-producers.
wow excellent point.

I am by no means rich, and for me this whole "tax the rich" gambit by the left is just a distraction. As someone stated,even if you taxed the richest people 100%, it would only mean about a trillion more dollars a year. At the current rate we are 14 tril in debt, and over the next 10 years we will go another 8 to 12 tril in debt by current figures, so taxing the rich is not going to get it (not that im even advocating it). Plain and simple, we have to stop washington from spending like its not their money, oh wait, it isnt!!

its a terrible circle, congress trades money in the form of handouts to get votes to stay in office....a properly drafted balance budget amendment and term limits is what we need.
scottycoyote is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 05:45 AM
  #9  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

um....he's not that young....his 'empire' has been built.....and what's his political 'bent' ?
Is he a liberal scum ? More importantly...HE HAS SO MUCH MONEY THAT A TAX INCREASE DOES NOT TOUCH HIS LIFE. This schmuck is so rich, he has lost his ability to see what 'we po' foke' have to go thru...he's got no idea what it's like to clip coupons, or have to actually SHOP for something. He's not a part of 'the world' the rest of us live in, in this regard and as such, his statements are to be crap-canned. He's an idiot for making the statement.
bergall is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 06:19 AM
  #10  
Giant Nontypical
 
C. Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kountze, Texas
Posts: 5,147
Default

Originally Posted by Cougar Mag View Post
"That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.
I personally think he should pay 0% on his capital gains, but if he wants to be taken seriously, why didn't he figure what 36% was for him and right a check?

Evidently, he was smart enough not to do that.

C. Davis
C. Davis is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.