Warren Buffett on Income Taxes

#76
#76
RespectTradition said:
I asked you this before and you conveniently ignored it.

Should corporations like the New York Times get First Amendment Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech or should that only go to individuals who self publish newspapers?
Click to expand...

Wrong amendment.

It's the 14th we are talking about.

:hi:

To your (red herring) point though - I think an interpretation of "The Press" as being more than an individual with a Gutenberg printer is self-evident. That is why it is singled out and not covered under the umbrella of freedom of speech which it could well be. Hence, the distinction was made.

In addition, said "Press" has certain responsibilities under a properly functioning democracy - again, another reason the distinction was made. Most of the corporate press, of course, is failing in those responsibilities in our own historic time. Indeed, often it is the individual with that gift of the Enlightenment - the internet (thank you, government research!) - that is coming closest to meeting those responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
#77
#77
Some good points in this article. The real sham from Obama is that he keeps talking millionaires and billionaires but his plan hits 200K and up; and 90% of the people get a tax hike won't be millionaires or billionaires.

Review & Outlook: Warren Buffett's Tax Dodge - WSJ.com

I'm sure BPMFV would agree with the opening statement

Barney Kilgore, the man who made the Wall Street Journal into a national publication, was once asked why so many rich people favored higher taxes. That's easy, he replied. They already have their money.
Click to expand...
 
#78
#78
By virtue of the fact that Jimmy Carter was involved in farming and peanut processing, he wasn't going to have a tax liability the year before he ran. There were, and to some extent still are, all sorts of loopholes available to farmers and farm related businesses. There also wasn't AMT. Carter voluntarily made a tax payment so he could claim he paid federal taxes.

Jim Sasser used the fact that he had paid more taxes than Bill Brock on a fraction of Brock's income to beat Brock. It was the only thing Sasser could truthfully claim other than being a SOB.

Here are the facts about who's pays and has been paying taxes since 1987 until 2008 (the last year that complete stats are available).

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
 
#79
#79
utgibbs said:
Wrong amendment.

It's the 14th we are talking about.

:hi:

To your (red herring) point though - I think an interpretation of "The Press" as being more than an individual with a Gutenberg printer is self-evident. That is why it is singled out and not covered under the umbrella of freedom of speech which it could well be. Hence, the distinction was made.

In addition, said "Press" has certain responsibilities under a properly functioning democracy - again, another reason the distinction was made. Most of the corporate press, of course, is failing in those responsibilities in our own historic time. Indeed, often it is the individual with that gift of the Enlightenment - the internet (thank you, government research!) - that is coming closest to meeting those responsibilities.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should read up on your history. The newspapers of the day when that amendment was adopted were self-published, like Ben Franklin's paper. So how exactly is the corporate press 'self evident'?

As to that whole idea, I have found that most 'self-evident' ideas are way of saying I can't prove my point so I will create a circular argument. A point doesn't prove itself.
 
#80
#80
RespectTradition said:
Maybe you should read up on your history. The newspapers of the day when that amendment was adopted were self-published, like Ben Franklin's paper. So how exactly is the corporate press 'self evident'?

As to that whole idea, I have found that most 'self-evident' ideas are way of saying I can't prove my point so I will create a circular argument. A point doesn't prove itself.
Click to expand...

Oh, I said nothing about the corporate press being self-evident. I said the "press" as a collection of individuals dispersing information was self-evident, so self-evident in fact that it required its mention in the Bill of Rights alongside the freedom of speech for individuals. So, it is so self-evident, they made it plain in the First Amendment itself.

But, there is also a lot of history to call upon. That I am informed of this history might make it more self-evident to me than most, although the First Amendment does take some explaining otherwise.

History like this:

Newspapers of the American Revolution

Revolutionary era papers, most of which were not one man and his Gutenberg.

Let's get into the real history further. Who exactly printed the Federalist papers? Did Madison and Hamilton tour the country with their Gutenberg and visit each state accordingly? What does Hamilton have to say about the "press" in Federalist Paper #84?

Finally, the Supreme Court wrestled with this very problem in 1938 (Lovell vs City of Griffin) and came out on my side.

As often happens, ideology has blinded someone to the real world outside the back door. The press was never considered an individual and his Gutenberg. It was self-evident it was an example (along the lines of your reasoning) where a collection of individuals disperse information, as Hamilton's protests against the Bill of Rights demonstrates.
 
#81
#81
utgibbs said:
It is a winner, but I can go one better.

If we were really smart we'd tax "fake people" (sic) more and real people less.

But, we can't even get our collective heads around progressivity, so how can we make such an imaginative, daring leap?
Click to expand...

back to the whole taxes don't raise prices routine. Well, at least you're consistent. Not at all correct but consistent
 
#82
#82
utvolpj said:
back to the whole taxes don't raise prices routine. Well, at least you're consistent. Not at all correct but consistent
Click to expand...

As I've said, even I'm getting tired of doing econ 101 here.

Taxes on profits cannot affect prices. That is a free market fundamental.

I believe Mr Buffett has my back too. :hi:
 
#84
#84
utgibbs said:
As I've said, even I'm getting tired of doing econ 101 here.

Taxes on profits cannot affect prices. That is a free market fundamental.

I believe Mr Buffett has my back too. :hi:
Click to expand...

Idiotic. If impacts the prices that matter - tomorrow's.

My guess is that Mr. Buffett would find your senseless rants on Capital, overuse of a word you don't understand and ranting about everyone's worldview but your own being skewed borderline retarded at the very best.
 
#85
#85
utvolpj said:
to make the same GP% prices must go up. Agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

BigPapaVol said:
Idiotic. If impacts the prices that matter - tomorrow's.

My guess is that Mr. Buffett would find your senseless rants on Capital, overuse of a word you don't understand and ranting about everyone's worldview but your own being skewed borderline retarded at the very best.
Click to expand...

I've demonstrated ad infinitum that there is a lack of appreciation for the real world outside the back door. It's not just the usual suspects here - it is prevalent throughout the US managerial class.

Mr Buffet is an odd character, but he does have my back in the very article in this thread.

@pj - your question is well off the plot. This is a better way to ask: can GM start charging 1,000,000 for the AVEO? Why not? I mean, what if their taxes went up?
 
#86
#86
utgibbs said:
@pj - your question is well off the plot. This is a better way to ask: can GM start charging 1,000,000 for the AVEO? Why not? I mean, what if their taxes went up?
Click to expand...

that has nothing to do with my question

If taxes on a company's profits were to increase would they have to raise the price to maintain the same profit %?
 
#87
#87
utvolpj said:
that has nothing to do with my question

If taxes on a company's profits were to increase would they have to raise the price to maintain the same profit %?
Click to expand...

And your question has absolutely nothing to do with whether they could raise prices or not, but clearly more education is needed.

I know you want a yes or no answer, so:

NO.

Explanation: to raise prices to cover their "lost" revenue would ensure they have no profits at all. If maintaining GP margin was an imperative they would have to find different ways of making up the difference. This is Econ 101 people. This is what every entrepreneur knows.

Profit is what matters. Ever wonder why they report "pre-tax profit" in Europe?
 
#88
#88
utgibbs said:
I've demonstrated ad infinitum that there is a lack of appreciation for the real world outside the back door. It's not just the usual suspects here - it is prevalent throughout the US managerial class.

Mr Buffet is an odd character, but he does have my back in the very article in this thread.

@pj - your question is well off the plot. This is a better way to ask: can GM start charging 1,000,000 for the AVEO? Why not? I mean, what if their taxes went up?
Click to expand...

you have never demonstrated anything. Typing it doesn't make it so - and I've said that ad infinitum.

Your views are prevalent throughout the broke class and the broken eurosocialist elite clowns. Keep them there. America blew their doors off in just a couple centuries because we laughed at their collectivist view of the world. If you want real world, go get you some and leave our real one alone.
 
#89
#89
Unless the acceptable answer is "just eat the loss" then I only know of x ways to deal with ANY increase in my cost of doing business. (higher taxes means I make less money which absolutely, positively, incontrovertibly is a cost)

Lesser product; I cut corners on my product bringing my cost down

Cut employment; have fewer people doing the same work

Change employment; get rid of more experienced employees for newer and cheaper ones and/or cut whatever benefits extended to employees are required

Move; if viable moving some or part of my business elsewhere to circumvent the tax losses.

I raise my product's cost to the consumer.

Assuming there's not some crazy inefficiency in my business to begin with (which would be bad business even without a tax increase being an issue) I keep coming back to the same idea; increased taxes lower my bottom line and I either eat the loss, compensate to the detriment of my product/employment (or both) or pass the cost down to the consumer. (or some combination of some or all of the above)
 
#90
#90
his argument is based upon the silly technicality that federal taxes are paid well after the income earned, therefore those taxes aren't imputed into the pricing. The entire premise is altogether idiotic or reserved for the business owners that he knows - former ones.
 
#91
#91
BigPapaVol said:
his argument is based upon the silly technicality that federal taxes are paid well after the income earned, therefore those taxes aren't imputed into the pricing. The entire premise is altogether idiotic or reserved for the business owners that he knows - former ones.
Click to expand...

Absolutely incorrect.

It is based on the very foundation of the free market especially in the age of neoliberalism.

Tell me now, why can't GM charge 1,000,000 for the AVEO?

Why?
 
#92
#92
hndog609 said:
Unless the acceptable answer is "just eat the loss" then I only know of x ways to deal with ANY increase in my cost of doing business. (higher taxes means I make less money which absolutely, positively, incontrovertibly is a cost)

Lesser product; I cut corners on my product bringing my cost down

Cut employment; have fewer people doing the same work

Change employment; get rid of more experienced employees for newer and cheaper ones and/or cut whatever benefits extended to employees are required

Move; if viable moving some or part of my business elsewhere to circumvent the tax losses.

I raise my product's cost to the consumer.

Assuming there's not some crazy inefficiency in my business to begin with (which would be bad business even without a tax increase being an issue) I keep coming back to the same idea; increased taxes lower my bottom line and I either eat the loss, compensate to the detriment of my product/employment (or both) or pass the cost down to the consumer. (or some combination of some or all of the above)
Click to expand...

You could raise your cost to the consumer, sure.

At the expense of all your profits. Unless, of course, you don't have real competition and you actually operate in a cartel. But that brings down the whole edifice of the magical (mythical) free market system.

:hi:
 
#93
#93
utgibbs said:
Absolutely incorrect.

It is based on the very foundation of the free market especially in the age of neoliberalism.

Tell me now, why can't GM charge 1,000,000 for the AVEO?

Why?
Click to expand...

Is this your version of demonstrating something? Is this really the guy who couldn't find a 10K with both hands and flashlight? Same guy that understands economics at the davol level? Same guy?
 
#95
#95
utgibbs said:
You could raise your cost to the consumer, sure.

At the expense of all your profits. Unless, of course, you don't have real competition and you actually operate in a cartel. But that brings down the whole edifice of the magical (mythical) free market system.

:hi:
Click to expand...

again with the thinking that companies will just eat the new taxes at the expense of their profit.
 
#96
#96
utgibbs said:
You could raise your cost to the consumer, sure.

At the expense of all your profits. Unless, of course, you don't have real competition and you actually operate in a cartel. But that brings down the whole edifice of the magical (mythical) free market system.

:hi:
Click to expand...

If only for my edification please explain this as at first blush it's utterly nonsensical. How many companies have raised their prices for ANY reason and remained profitable? You also make it sound as though I'd have to double or triple my product's cost to cover the loss, which again makes no sense. (though it would hurt more if I dealt in small units as each would have to bring in a higher amount per unit as opposed to being spread over many units)

Losses (regardless of what brings them about) are eaten as losses or made up for elsewhere. One of the ways to address the latter is to pass on the costs. It's been done before and will be done again. (nothing magical or mythical about it)
 
#98
#98
utvolpj said:
again with the thinking that companies will just eat the new taxes at the expense of their profit.
Click to expand...

They will have to, unless they can find ways of improving their efficiency.

Law of the free market. It's lower than Econ 101. This is high school.
 
#99
#99
hndog609 said:
If only for my edification please explain this as at first blush it's utterly nonsensical. How many companies have raised their prices for ANY reason and remained profitable? You also make it sound as though I'd have to double or triple my product's cost to cover the loss, which again makes no sense. (though it would hurt more if I dealt in small units as each would have to bring in a higher amount per unit as opposed to being spread over many units)

Losses (regardless of what brings them about) are eaten as losses or made up for elsewhere. One of the ways to address the latter is to pass on the costs. It's been done before and will be done again. (nothing magical or mythical about it)
Click to expand...

Man, I thought y'all were the bourgeoisie? Y'all don't know profits from losses.

They AREN'T losses.

There are a number of good reasons to raise prices. For instance, a raw material goes up in price. The cost of transport increases across the board.

These, of course, affect the entire market / affect the cost of manufacture, affect the cost of delivering a service.

But taxes AREN'T losses. I say again, they AREN'T losses.

High school econ fellas. And it tells me y'all aren't used to dealing with this stuff at all.

But I am.

So, I ask for a third time, why can't GM charge 1,000,000 for the AVEO?
 
#100
#100
utgibbs said:
There are a number of good reasons to raise prices. For instance, a raw material goes up in price. The cost of transport increases across the board.

These, of course, affect the entire market / affect the cost of manufacture, affect the cost of delivering a service.

But taxes AREN'T losses. I say again, they AREN'T losses.
Click to expand...

A change in tax rate is an entire market effect just as the examples you cite above.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top