Remember Warren "tax me more" Buffet?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**J-Roc77**

biccat wrote:
J-Roc77 wrote:Here you go with a false dilemma now. I am sure you knew that when you posted though. Only 2 choices? Why not 3 or more, how about option (C) "the company (and Buffet) feel that citizens and companies only should pay taxes legitimately owed and not accidental or falsely imposed ones as an accident like that will not fix tax reform issues."

No, what Mr. Buffett (apologies for the misspellings above), is saying is that the wealthy should not be spared from "shared sacrifice." Specifically that the wealthy get tax breaks not available to regular individuals.

However, the glaring fault in Mr. Buffett's reasoning is that there is no maximum level of taxation[/url] under the current law. If Mr. Buffett feels that he should be paying more in taxes, then [i]he can pay more in taxes.

If you're interested, I can provide the link to donate money to the US government. You can even direct your donation to paying down the debt instead of putting it towards the general fund (not that it really matters).

What Mr. Buffett is arguing (and what you're arguing with your "legitimately owed" language) is that Mr. Buffett should only pay the minimum amount of taxes necessary to avoid going to prison/having his wages garnished/being sued by the IRS/etc. This argument is incorrect because it assumes that the only taxes that are legitimate are those that one is required to pay. If this is the case, then it is not illegitimate for the wealthy to enjoy their current level of taxation, and Mr. Buffett is asking for an illegitimate level of taxation on his friends. Or, basically, a punitive tax.

On the issue, Mr. Buffett (through his proxy) is disputing the amount of taxes he should be required to pay. But in his op-ed (see link above), he makes it clear that he (and his billionaire friends) should share the sacrifice by paying more in taxes. But when afforded the opportunity to pay more in taxes (even if the tax assessment is illegitimate), he balks. Remember when he came out against the "corporate jet tax"?

So, like I said above, Mr. Buffett likes the idea of "shared sacrifice" from billionaires, but he doesn't like the idea of actually having to share in the sacrifice.

J-Roc77 wrote:The way you word your argument is that he and only he wants to pay more taxes which is a falsehood, Buffet is calling for taxes on the super rich and multinational companies, including himself. Bit of a straw man you are trying to build there. Of course, you knew that as well when you posted.

This is irrelevant. Mr. Buffett's complaint is that his tax rate is too low. When he complains that his tax rate is too low, it is incumbent upon him to increase his tax contribution. By failing to do so, and particularly by refusing to pay a tax assessment (even when illegitimate), he is being hypocritical.

ShumaGorath wrote:you can't actually address dogmas points

I could, but honestly, I'm tired of his trolling, personal insults, and attempts to deflect every discussion on this forum.

Your argument is still "Buffet did not pay a tax he did not owe, he is a hypocrite do to this." The reality is a company did not pay a tax it did not owe, but that is an argument that does not fit your agenda. To back up your loosely made statement you say that a falsely imposed tax = a legitimate tax, and paying a falsely imposed tax = a donation and a donation = legitimate tax. You are trying to equate the IRS mistakenly billing a company 16mill or so and saying they should have just paid it as a donation and not called them on the mistake. Your string of logic is a stretch at best you are trying to connect imaginary dots. You are really stretching a straw man here for all it is worth now saying that Buffet was upset he did not pay more taxes when Buffets point is that people like him do not have to pay their fair share of taxes which currently is not enough (as you put they just have to pay the minimum to not go to jail, and they only do so.) You also state Buffet can donate but assume he does not. Can you show he does not donate or is this just more conjecture to support your loose claim of him being a hypocrite? The burden of proof is on you to support your main points however you have not sufficiently done so.

**Ouze**

Look, the very first words in Biicat's second paragraph were that he agrees with Netjets (that the tax is incorrect). The fact he then still saw fit to craft an argument that here was an obligation to pay it anyway should have been a giant, waving flag that this will not be a rational discussion with a reasonable person.

Think of all the things, productive useful things; you could have been doing in the time spent refuting this "argument". Learning to yodel, how to play the harmonica, left handed basket weaving. This is likely the saddest bit of troll theater that has ever played out here in the OT, and it cheapens us all. I understand why Lucy keeps setting up the football, but at some point Charlie Brown has to stop trying to kick the damn thing.

**J-Roc77**

I agree, I do want to learn to yodel. Alas some things are not in the cards for me as even the lowly bar form of yodeling, karaoke, is beyond my skills. I cannot carry a tune in a bucket. And I am pretty sure left handed basket weaving is a metaphor...

I did state my thoughts on this thread with my first post in here, I even considered what would be different about this thread than all the others like it. I decided to post anyways since I had a free evening! Glutton for punishment? Also I posted because sometimes in these threads a tangent appears that is worth discussing even though it is off topic they can turn out to be a better topic. Still waiting. I admit I was a little interested (more accurate...morbid curiosity) on how he would try to connect dots. Well I am not psychic but I was pretty accurate with my first post.

But hey, we have a saying in the woods, "bugs gotta eat to." You know... because some bugs kill trees .....hmmm...it apparently does not convey the meaning here it does in the woods. How about trolls gotta eat to? ...circle of life and all. I am in no way insinuating Biccat kills trees (although he may construe my post that way).

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
You don't need over 50% to be the controlling shareholder or even a de facto 'majority' shareholder if a significant percentage of stock is tied up in the hands of minor shareholders.

Sure, but you need more than 50% of the stock to be a majority shareholder, which is a critical distinction if we're considering hard power in the economic sphere.

True, which is why I do not disagree with you. However you can be a de facto majority shareholder without being the literal majority share holder. 34% is enough to have a majority if that balance of the stock up to over 50% is firmly divided (which xcannot be relied on) or in hands of 'economic vassals'.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
In order to stay in the lop the 'fan club' agrees not to outdo the person they are following, as gentleman's agreements are of limited value in high stakes business it implies that the fan club couldnt outinvest Buffet even if they tried.

That seems to imply that the "fan club" doesn't exist at all.

One would hope so.
The 'fan club' is not an organisation per se, as what we would call a fan club in any other case, that would be illegal. In trading terms a 'fan club' is the colloquial term for a methodology by which business information is shared legally and fairly securely yet leading to results similar to insider trading. The methodology of the fan club is so widespread now that insider trading cases are a thing of the past, the eighties by and large. Are people insider trading? After a fashion yes. Why isnt it a big scandal anymore? Because there are plenty of ways to get the info out without actually breaking the law. Legal targeted dissemination of information you have rightful access too is easy enough if you are careful, free speech laws help there.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
In any circumstance 34% is a major shareholder who will be consulted in all major undertakings, in all likelihood Buffets share is the controlling interest, though I could be wrong here.

Probably, though that's quite distinct from possessing absolute authority as a majority shareholder, or a person with regard to their own faculties, would.

In this case check their website, Warren Buffet is the frontman for the Berkshire Hathaway Inc, wrote the mission statement etc. I think we are digressing here, whether or not Buffet has absolute control or not is not as relevant as establishing that he has opportunity for a strong measure of control/influence over the running of the company.

Thus going back to the OP comparing Buffets personal tax opinions and those of a company he 'controls' like Berkshire Hathaway is valid. It is just that the conclusion drawn by the OP in his comparison is dead wrong. Buffet can have moral and intellectual consistency while arguing for more tax in one case and less for the other.

**Shadowseer_Kim**

Back to the topic at hand, about Warren Buffet and his stated desire to pay more in taxes, but his unwillingness to do so

I submit to you http://www.gatesfoundation.org/leadership/Pages/warren-buffett.aspx

Where he is "donating" large chunks of his stock portfolio, thus avoiding any capital gains taxes on those earnings. He of course then gets a tax break for charitable contributions.

On top of that Warren Buffet is now an appointed "trustee" of the Gates Foundation where he will undoubtedly draw a salary for his work. Thus gaining some of money back in the form of pay, which will be taxed at a lower rate.

As I have always told people who beleive taxes should be higher "Pay more and do not file for a refund at the end of the year, the government will not mind if you overpay. A refund filing is not required if would get money back." I know of no one who has taken this advice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anybody who thinks they should pay more in taxes, and then doesn't do so voluntarily, is not genuinely interested in paying more.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is another article on the subject worth reading

http://www.omaha.com/article/20111016/NEWS/710169929

Basically, by drawing a salary of only $100,000 a year he is paying lower personal taxes than the average CEO of a major corporation.

As the article points out, yes the corporation keeps the "extra" pay in its profit margin, and so pays tax on that. However the Corporate tax rate (while being one of the highest rates worldwide just for being in the USA) is lower than what would be paid had he drawn that money in salary.

Also to note. The company then uses this money on you know "business expenses" like corporate jets, boats, cars what have you, that Mr. Warren Buffet uses on a regular basis, but personally does not have to pay for or pay tax on.

The company in fact gets to claim deductions on these items with depretiation as part of "the cost of doing business."

**reds8n**

Seems to me the OP has been addressed quite sufficiently.

I don't see this going anyway useful.