PDA

View Full Version : Warren Buffett is awesome.



pghin08
10-12-2011, 04:45 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/news/economy/buffett_taxes_2010/index.htm?iid=Lead

Dude is one of my heroes. He's a billionaire 40 times over, and he still lives in the same house he's lived in for 50+ years. The world could use way more Warren Buffett's than Daniel Snyder's.

theonedru
10-12-2011, 06:12 PM
I agree

duane1969
10-12-2011, 07:19 PM
Didn't he sing Margaritaville??...oh wait, not the same Buffet...but I bet the Buffet I am thinking of is more fun to hang out with ;)

pghin08
10-12-2011, 08:52 PM
Didn't he sing Margaritaville??...oh wait, not the same Buffet...but I bet the Buffet I am thinking of is more fun to hang out with ;)

Haha, I'd rather hang out with Warren over Jimmy. I could learn something useful from Warren. He's a true American hero.

duane1969
10-13-2011, 10:59 AM
Yeah but Jimmy has better party favors...and babes in bikinis :party0053:

andrewhoya
10-13-2011, 06:11 PM
Haha, I'd rather hang out with Warren over Jimmy. I could learn something useful from Warren. He's a true American hero.

Me too.

sanfran22
10-13-2011, 09:21 PM
Yeah, I guess so.......;)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html

INTIMADATOR2007
10-13-2011, 10:51 PM
Yeah, I guess so.......;)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html
Great link thanks for posting , I thought this was funny ....
"Mr. Buffett has also already sheltered the bulk of his fortune from federal taxes by putting them into a foundation that will give the money away. That's an act of generosity, but if the government's purposes are so vital, why doesn't he simply give the money to the IRS?"

Of course he would be calling for higher taxes , He dosen't pay any...lol...and owes 1 billion in back taxes , what a fraud!

theonedru
10-13-2011, 10:58 PM
Great link thanks for posting , I thought this was funny ....
"Mr. Buffett has also already sheltered the bulk of his fortune from federal taxes by putting them into a foundation that will give the money away. That's an act of generosity, but if the government's purposes are so vital, why doesn't he simply give the money to the IRS?"

Of course he would be calling for higher taxes , He dosen't pay any...lol...and owes 1 billion in back taxes , what a fraud!

How mature name calling and bashing a man who has done alot of great things. Can you just bring forth a reasonable argument instead of instantly slandering them.

andrewhoya
10-14-2011, 07:25 AM
How mature name calling and bashing a man who has done alot of great things. Can you just bring forth a reasonable argument instead of instantly slandering them.

That was his opinion. He wasn't bashing anyone. His argument was reasonable.

Hilfiger1975
10-14-2011, 07:36 AM
He can spread some of that wealth over here...:winking0071:

INTIMADATOR2007
10-14-2011, 09:02 AM
How mature name calling and bashing a man who has done alot of great things. Can you just bring forth a reasonable argument instead of instantly slandering them.
Man, your on a roll the last couple days . Ease up !

pghin08
10-14-2011, 10:43 AM
Great link thanks for posting , I thought this was funny ....
"Mr. Buffett has also already sheltered the bulk of his fortune from federal taxes by putting them into a foundation that will give the money away. That's an act of generosity, but if the government's purposes are so vital, why doesn't he simply give the money to the IRS?"

Of course he would be calling for higher taxes , He dosen't pay any...lol...and owes 1 billion in back taxes , what a fraud!

He clearly trusts Bill Gates (by the way, Buffett is giving away 99% of his fortune, I believe 83% to the Gates Foundation) more than the government.

sanfran22
10-14-2011, 10:45 AM
How mature name calling and bashing a man who has done alot of great things. Can you just bring forth a reasonable argument instead of instantly slandering them.

I don't know, maybe look into the man and possibly read the article??

sanfran22
10-14-2011, 10:47 AM
He clearly trusts Bill Gates (by the way, Buffett is giving away 99% of his fortune, I believe 83% to the Gates Foundation) more than the government.

So why is he crying to raise his taxes yet has taken every tax advantage and is donating his money privately? Sounds like a double standard IMO. He could always write a check to the feds every year if he was so convicted....

pghin08
10-14-2011, 11:17 AM
So why is he crying to raise his taxes yet has taken every tax advantage and is donating his money privately? Sounds like a double standard IMO. He could always write a check to the feds every year if he was so convicted....

Because he knows the problem isn't just his alone. And anyways, you don't think Warren Buffett's financial advisor tells him to do this? I should know, I work for a financial advisory firm, and pretty much one of our goals is to keep wealthy people from paying taxes with vehicles like charitable foundations (I know, I'm part of the problem too). He could write a check to the Feds, but it would be a one-time thing, and wouldn't amount to a hill of beans when it came to the debt problem. He knows that real reform exists way outside of his wallet alone.

sanfran22
10-14-2011, 11:19 AM
Because he knows the problem isn't just his alone. And anyways, you don't think Warren Buffett's financial advisor tells him to do this? I should know, I work for a financial advisory firm, and pretty much one of our goals is to keep wealthy people from paying taxes with vehicles like charitable foundations (I know, I'm part of the problem too). He could write a check to the Feds, but it would be a one-time thing, and wouldn't amount to a hill of beans when it came to the debt problem. He knows that real reform exists way outside of his wallet alone.

So taxing the rich isn't the answer? It seems he's paid a fair share. I'd rather it got to a charity then the gov't as well.

pghin08
10-14-2011, 11:38 AM
So taxing the rich isn't the answer? It seems he's paid a fair share. I'd rather it got to a charity then the gov't as well.

I'm a bit conservative on the debt issue, actually. Here's the things I would do, in order, if I were in office.


1. Cut spending.

We have some departments and programs who aren't pulling their weight, and a defense budget that can be hemmed in as well. And I'm sorry, I'm not trying to push Grandma into the grave, but we need vast Medicare/Medicaid reform (and SS). Sorry, but you're not getting a new hip on the government's dollar at age 90. Not happening. The boomers were lied to, and the government grossly overpromised. But if we don't cut some benefits now, younger generations will suffer greatly.

2. Everyone gets involved.

Most economists say that our debt problems are solvable only if we have both spending cuts and tax increases. Diet and exercise, if you will. But in order to have long-lasting and worthwhile tax reform, it does have to include everybody. Cut out some deductions, but everyone needs to pay at least a little bit more. Though I have one big beef with the tax codes' benefit for the wealthy...

3. Tax Capital Gains as Ordinary Income.

It's a problem when you have a tax code that makes it easier to make money with OTHER money than with labor. There is class warfare in this country. It's being waged by the super-wealthy, and they are winning (it's not even close).

sanfran22
10-14-2011, 11:41 AM
I'm a bit conservative on the debt issue, actually. Here's the things I would do, in order, if I were in office.


1. Cut spending.

We have some departments and programs who aren't pulling their weight, and a defense budget that can be hemmed in as well. And I'm sorry, I'm not trying to push Grandma into the grave, but we need vast Medicare/Medicaid reform (and SS). Sorry, but you're not getting a new hip on the government's dollar at age 90. Not happening. The boomers were lied to, and the government grossly overpromised. But if we don't cut some benefits now, younger generations will suffer greatly.

2. Everyone gets involved.

Most economists say that our debt problems are solvable only if we have both spending cuts and tax increases. Diet and exercise, if you will. But in order to have long-lasting and worthwhile tax reform, it does have to include everybody. Cut out some deductions, but everyone needs to pay at least a little bit more. Though I have one big beef with the tax codes' benefit for the wealthy...

3. Tax Capital Gains as Ordinary Income.

It's a problem when you have a tax code that makes it easier to make money with OTHER money than with labor. There is class warfare in this country. It's being waged by the super-wealthy, and they are winning (it's not even close).
I agree on 1 and pretty much 2 (sadly it's gonna have to happen I think).
On 3, didn't they get taxed on the money once before? The gains are kinda like a double tax?? (taxing on money made off of the first taxed money?)

pghin08
10-14-2011, 11:50 AM
I agree on 1 and pretty much 2 (sadly it's gonna have to happen I think).
On 3, didn't they get taxed on the money once before? The gains are kinda like a double tax?? (taxing on money made off of the first taxed money?)

Most of the time, yes. There are certain investments in which they wouldn't (of course ROTH IRA's, etc). However, this is not just a tax on the rich. Most middle class people have some stake in the markets, and they pay taxes on that money as well prior to investing.

sanfran22
10-14-2011, 11:59 AM
Most of the time, yes. There are certain investments in which they wouldn't (of course ROTH IRA's, etc). However, this is not just a tax on the rich. Most middle class people have some stake in the markets, and they pay taxes on that money as well prior to investing.

So are we just going to raise the taxes on the wealthy cap gains? Or everyone?

pghin08
10-14-2011, 12:24 PM
So are we just going to raise the taxes on the wealthy cap gains? Or everyone?

Everyone. If you make 50K a year, and you sell a stock with a cap gain of $10K, then you have $60K of income that year, and you pay the appropriate tax rate.

habsheaven
10-14-2011, 12:33 PM
Are not the gains "New" money (ie: earnings) that are being taxed? I do not see how that is being double-taxed.

pghin08
10-14-2011, 12:41 PM
Are not the gains "New" money (ie: earnings) that are being taxed? I do not see how that is being double-taxed.

I'm sure what he's talking about is the fact that for most people, when you buy a stock/fund, you're buying it with money that you've already paid taxes on (if I get a paycheck, transfer it to my brokerage and buy 100 shares of Apple--I don't get paid THAT much, btw, I've already paid taxes on that money as earned income).

However, if you're the CEO of a publicly traded company, and you pay yourself with your own stock, then yeah, you're really only paying tax once.

habsheaven
10-14-2011, 12:55 PM
I'm sure what he's talking about is the fact that for most people, when you buy a stock/fund, you're buying it with money that you've already paid taxes on (if I get a paycheck, transfer it to my brokerage and buy 100 shares of Apple--I don't get paid THAT much, btw, I've already paid taxes on that money as earned income).

However, if you're the CEO of a publicly traded company, and you pay yourself with your own stock, then yeah, you're really only paying tax once.

So you are saying when you sell those stocks you are paying tax on the "total sales value" and not just the "gain"?

pghin08
10-14-2011, 01:05 PM
So you are saying when you sell those stocks you are paying tax on the "total sales value" and not just the "gain"?

No, you're just paying on the gain. My point is more that it's all in how you look at it. You're right, you haven't paid taxes on the gain whatsoever. But most people think "Well, I paid taxes on this money before I invested it, so why are they taxing me again???"

If I had a nickel for every time one of my clients said something to that sort :smash:

AUTaxMan
10-14-2011, 03:19 PM
3. Tax Capital Gains as Ordinary Income.

If your goal is to kill investment in the middle of a recession, this would be the best thing to do.


Most of the time, yes. There are certain investments in which they wouldn't (of course ROTH IRA's, etc). However, this is not just a tax on the rich. Most middle class people have some stake in the markets, and they pay taxes on that money as well prior to investing.

Anyone with a retirement plan has a stake in the market.

AUTaxMan
10-14-2011, 03:22 PM
No, you're just paying on the gain. My point is more that it's all in how you look at it. You're right, you haven't paid taxes on the gain whatsoever. But most people think "Well, I paid taxes on this money before I invested it, so why are they taxing me again???"

If I had a nickel for every time one of my clients said something to that sort :smash:

The real double taxation argument exists in the corporate dividend context.

pghin08
10-14-2011, 03:25 PM
If your goal is to kill investment in the middle of a recession, this would be the best thing to do.


Anyone with a retirement plan has a stake in the market.

Not true at all. I'm a middle class investor, and what would equate to a 10% tax hike on a small portion of my income surely wouldn't cause me to greatly alter my strategy and certainly wouldn't cause me to bail on the market entirely. Nor would it change my clients. They see the benefit of long-term investment over any tax increase. They'd be punished far more for staying OUT of the market and in cash.

And yeah, that's my point, most people have a stake in the market.

pghin08
10-14-2011, 03:32 PM
The real double taxation argument exists in the corporate dividend context.

I have to ask. Why are you so opposed to corporate tax hikes? Or for that matter, any tax hikes? You talk to almost any economist, and they'll say that for the US to adequately address their debt issues, they need to cut spending and increase taxes.

I know the idea behind keeping corporate taxes low. "Well if the corporations have more money, it's good for all of us. More job creation." Yeah, there will be more job creation. IN INDIA. You think Coke or Dell want to hire a bunch of high-paid, entitlement-bearing Americans? Not on their balance sheets. American corporations are seeing more and more of their profits come from overseas, and they're responding with jobs.

AUTaxMan
10-14-2011, 04:01 PM
I have to ask. Why are you so opposed to corporate tax hikes? Or for that matter, any tax hikes? You talk to almost any economist, and they'll say that for the US to adequately address their debt issues, they need to cut spending and increase taxes.

I know the idea behind keeping corporate taxes low. "Well if the corporations have more money, it's good for all of us. More job creation." Yeah, there will be more job creation. IN INDIA. You think Coke or Dell want to hire a bunch of high-paid, entitlement-bearing Americans? Not on their balance sheets. American corporations are seeing more and more of their profits come from overseas, and they're responding with jobs.

We need to increase tax revenues, not increase taxes. I believe that increasing the tax base is the key to growth, not squeezing the producers even more than they are already being squeezed. This method has proven itself to work in the past.

We also need to lower the minimum wage in order to make America more competitive in the global workforce.

I don't have time to really answer your question in detail right now though.

pghin08
10-14-2011, 04:22 PM
We need to increase tax revenues, not increase taxes. I believe that increasing the tax base is the key to growth, not squeezing the producers even more than they are already being squeezed. This method has proven itself to work in the past.

We also need to lower the minimum wage in order to make America more competitive in the global workforce.

I don't have time to really answer your question in detail right now though.

A. I question this.

B. Even if it were true, look at how much the world has changed in the past 30 years. We can't assume what worked long ago is bound to work again.

AUTaxMan
10-14-2011, 04:30 PM
A. I question this.

B. Even if it were true, look at how much the world has changed in the past 30 years. We can't assume what worked long ago is bound to work again.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

mrveggieman
10-14-2011, 05:03 PM
We need to increase tax revenues, not increase taxes. I believe that increasing the tax base is the key to growth, not squeezing the producers even more than they are already being squeezed. This method has proven itself to work in the past.

We also need to lower the minimum wage in order to make America more competitive in the global workforce.

I don't have time to really answer your question in detail right now though.


Lower the min wage? Dude are you serious. So you want to take more away from someone who is struggling to make ends me in order to give it to the rich in the form of tax breaks. And how is that going to help out society as a whole again let alone do any for the economy besides increase the gap between the haves and the have nots?

AUTaxMan
10-14-2011, 05:08 PM
Lower the min wage? Dude are you serious. So you want to take more away from someone who is struggling to make ends me in order to give it to the rich in the form of tax breaks. And how is that going to help out society as a whole again let alone do any for the economy besides increase the gap between the haves and the have nots?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

habsheaven
10-14-2011, 06:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

How old is that video? lol

Regardless, it is complete hogwash. Employers need a certain number of employees to perform the necessary labour related to their business. It is a fallacy to believe that employers hire based on what the minimum wage is. They hire based on need. If they need "X" number of employees, they hire "X" number of employees. They do not hire more or less depending on the cost.

sanfran22
10-14-2011, 09:26 PM
How old is that video? lol

Regardless, it is complete hogwash. Employers need a certain number of employees to perform the necessary labour related to their business. It is a fallacy to believe that employers hire based on what the minimum wage is. They hire based on need. If they need "X" number of employees, they hire "X" number of employees. They do not hire more or less depending on the cost.
Yes they do hire based on cost. All the other employees pick up duties..

sanfran22
10-14-2011, 09:32 PM
Lower the min wage? Dude are you serious. So you want to take more away from someone who is struggling to make ends me in order to give it to the rich in the form of tax breaks. And how is that going to help out society as a whole again let alone do any for the economy besides increase the gap between the haves and the have nots?
So lets set it up this way. You realize that everytime wages go up, everything you buy does as well. Say the minimum wage goes up to 10.00. Then your milk may go up to 5. How does that help the poor or middle class? THe inflation of the goods I would bet goes up more and faster then wages. If there were no minimum wage, it could be argued the same milk would cost 2.00.
So if an employer offers 3.00 an hour, how many people do you think would work there? Probably no one. So if you have places competing for labor, the wages would go up but the cost of goods probably would rise slower.
Bottom line is I don't think the minimum wage does anything good for those that cry they need it. They just end up paying more for the same goods.

habsheaven
10-14-2011, 11:54 PM
Yes they do hire based on cost. All the other employees pick up duties..

I don't know how many business you have had a hand in the decision making in. But I can tell you first hand, the businesses I have overseen have never based low-end staffing on cost. If we needed three employees to keep the doors open, we hired three employees. The practice you are talking about is prevalent in situations where you have salaried workers, not hourly workers. In industries where you are providing services/products using minimum wage employees it is counter-productive to understaff.

Edit: and your example of "milk" is way off-base. Most dairy farmers are already working for less than minimum wage.

AUTaxMan
10-15-2011, 02:10 AM
How old is that video? lol

Regardless, it is complete hogwash. Employers need a certain number of employees to perform the necessary labour related to their business. It is a fallacy to believe that employers hire based on what the minimum wage is. They hire based on need. If they need "X" number of employees, they hire "X" number of employees. They do not hire more or less depending on the cost.

No offense, but I am going to go with the opinion of one of the most respected economists of the 20th century over yours on this one.

habsheaven
10-15-2011, 11:33 AM
No offense, but I am going to go with the opinion of one of the most respected economists of the 20th century over yours on this one.

No offense taken. I will stick with my own knowledge accumulated here in the 21st century.

sanfran22
10-15-2011, 12:09 PM
I don't know how many business you have had a hand in the decision making in. But I can tell you first hand, the businesses I have overseen have never based low-end staffing on cost. If we needed three employees to keep the doors open, we hired three employees. The practice you are talking about is prevalent in situations where you have salaried workers, not hourly workers. In industries where you are providing services/products using minimum wage employees it is counter-productive to understaff.

Edit: and your example of "milk" is way off-base. Most dairy farmers are already working for less than minimum wage.

I don't know how you run things in Canada, but i can tell you firsthand we hire considering a lot of issues including cost.
As far as the milk comment, a google search shows otherwise.

Rybowski
10-15-2011, 02:19 PM
Always had respect for Mr. Buffett, very smart man.

habsheaven
10-15-2011, 11:39 PM
I don't know how you run things in Canada, but i can tell you firsthand we hire considering a lot of issues including cost.
As far as the milk comment, a google search shows otherwise.

Of course you consider cost, but the manpower needs of your company outweigh any variations in cost. If your Production Manager tells you that you need a certain number of people, working a certain number of hours in order to produce a specific number of units. You have no choice but to provide him/her with the proper manpower. To do anything less is just bad business.

What am I "googling"? The wages of dairy farmers?