OK you've convinced me on Buffett and I concede the point. If his company is speculating in the way you describe, his business is part of the problem and should be taxed out of existence.
I would be pro-Buffett Rule...
- Thread starter JCash
- Start date
OK you've convinced me on Buffett and I concede the point. If his company is speculating in the way you describe, his business is part of the problem and should be taxed out of existence.
Rest assured people with fifty billion dollars don't need to worry about being careful with protecting their image and have more than a little control over whether or not their name is whored out.
Paying a higher rate of tax than what otherwise might be needed won't increase the shareholders' tax rate but it will decrease the value of the shareholders' shares. The shareholder pays either way.
The CEO and vice-chair of a company can influence corporate policy but if they are not doing what is in the shareholders' best interests they, and the company, can be subject to lawsuits. Some policies will require a greater than 51% shareholder consensus and, depending on the changes required, there can be minority shareholder protection even if the vote is 89% in favor.
You're also making the erroneous assumption that just because the IRS asks for money it means that the IRS is actually owed money. I doubt that there is a person here that would just go ahead and pay extra funds to the IRS without fighting it if they felt that they were in the right.
The greatest problem isn't corporate America; the greatest problem is mis-managed government spending and a lax fiscal policy. What I will agree on (this may be an assumption that you take the same position and I'm reading too much between the lines) is that the government shouldn't have bailed out the banks, insurance companies and other financial firms regardless of the short-term consequences. They have only delayed, and distributed, the consequences.
If government is granting the tax loopholes, then change the government. Don't blame the companies for wanting to pay less in taxes.
you're right, they don't need to, but buffett historically buys most of the companies under the berkshire umbrella with a handshake by trading on his reputation. he also keeps existing management in place 95% of the time & uses little or no operating control of the entities he acquires. nobody else runs their conglomerates like buffett runs berkshire, so to say "people with 50 billion dollars don't need to worry about being careful" in this case doesn't make alot of sense.
also, he is against 'the buffett rule' as obama laid it out, but obama doesn't really give a shit & continues to whore out buffett's name against his wishes. other than going to the media to explain himself, which he's done, i'm sure he'd appreciate your advice on how to exert more control over the behavior of the president.
This of it. By Buffet publicly siding with the government it gives him more lobbying power so his company's can gain more leverage.
It amazes me every day how 99% of people can't see even the most basic business strategy.
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc (Buffett's company) owns Geico, as well as dozens of other large corporations, and has investment shares in hundreds more.
Somebody better tell buffett that then...
You're hero is a scumbag.
Every time I see Obama's Jorg Gray it reminds me I've been meaning to buy one.
a picture of him receiving a medal from a POTUS who is about to screw him over against his wishes doesn't make him a scumbag.
Why would billionaires need to speculate? Very few people are like George Soros. It seems to me that the really wealthy own real industries like newspapers, factories, mining companies, oil etc. That speculating stuff is what the rich but not wealthy do, like Spielberg and then get scammed by investment banks and ponzis owned by the wealthy.
The 1% is probably more like the 0.1%.
I can actually understand the stance that it's unfair to tax income at a relatively high rate in the US - close to European countries in some states - while hardly taxing capital gains. That does seem like a tax code made to screw the middle class.
I'm against taxes morally, but to be fair, wealth gained purely by passive holding of assets could easily be taxed more and income taxed less. The extra money for consumption would benefit the wealthy anyway as they the places it would be spent anyway. Or the wealthy could just pay for the military since it serves their purpose anyway.
In any case, I would hate to be an American and pay close to European tax rates and get nothing in return except for contributing to war. Though being a single, male, young European I get nothing for my tax money either except for 5 hour emergency room waits.
Mmkay then.
You keep believing that he entered into that deal with Obomba innocently, and just wanted to see poor people treated 'more fairly,' while we all think that you are a moron and laugh at you.
While pointing.
And rolling on the floor. :banana_sml:
Who said anything about billionaires? I mentioned those earning more than $500,000.
They speculate to try to get richer - where do you think the investors of hedge funds come from, or other exotic investments? Everytime taxes are cut at the top, there is a wall of money that goes into "investment" - and they all chase "higher than average returns".
If inflation is growing by about 2% and GDP (which is always posted net of inflation) is growing at about 2%, a realistic return is an average of 4%. Some lucky people will make more than that, some will make considerably less. You can only really make more than inflation+GDP if you are an entrepreneur and start your own business. You can't do it passively through investment. Most investors are conditioned to thinking 4% is too low though and they don't understand that everyone can't make higher than average returns - so the wall of money flows into really risky stuff - exotic derivatives, oil futures and all the rest of it. It usually poisons the real economy affecting non investors, and all these guys usually lose money - i.e. not only do they not make the advertised 10% growth, but they lose what they put in in the first place.
You might as well tax them to drain the "hot money" out of the system - they will end up with more eventually than if they had punted it on oil futures, tax doesn't eat up 100% of capital like dodgy investment does. And because their main career depends on the economy being successful, draining the speculative element means that mainstream entrepreneurs make MORE money over the long term if the economy can be kept stable.
Re your point that as a "single, male, young European I get nothing for my tax money either except for 5 hour emergency room waits" - unless you can invent a way of staying young forever, you will find you eventually consume a lot more healthcare than emergency room waits.
Most healthcare is consumed in the last decade of life, at a time when you arn't in a position to earn. My father worked till he was 70, and didn't suffer a day's illness - but in retirement required a double heart by-pass. Just the procedure would have set him back $200,000 in the US, never mind the lengthy aftercare, but here it was on the NHS (he paid in when he was young to support old people, and now other young people are paying in to support him). Add in pension benefits and other benefits from living in a civilised state, I'd say he's got out pretty much what he put in, even though he put in more than most (he was earning a professional salary and worked longer than most).