Warren Buffett on Income Taxes

#101
#101
utgibbs said:
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.

Semantics nonwithstanding there is nothing, and I mean nothing that relieves me of money I would have otherwise kept that is not a "loss". If I'm paying Icepick and Fat Tony $50 a month for "protection" it's a cost of doing business. It's income I don't get to keep. My bank account has absolutely no way of distinguishing between an increase in gas prices, paying off the mob or a tax hike. None. I make X amount of money, I'm forced to pay out Y amount and get to keep Z amount. It doesn't matter a rat's rotting rectum what Y is other than it reduces Z. Taxes falls under Y.

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?
Click to expand...

Why can't GM sell AVEO's for a nickel? I bet they'd sell the hell out of 'em at that price.

And +1 on VB's observation.
 
#102
#102
Level of dumb is astounding. Hint: you condescend when you know wtf you're talking about.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#105
#105
volinbham said:
Wish I posted something like this earlier in this thread...:p
Click to expand...
It's a testament to my respect for your intelligence. I didn't even read your link. I just assumed that whatever it said, it must be right and I went over to the endzone to delete some cuss words or something. :)
 
#106
#106
GAVol said:
It's a testament to my respect for your intelligence. I didn't even read your link. I just assumed that whatever it said, it must be right and I went over to the endzone to delete some cuss words or something. :)
Click to expand...

I'm only slightly offended that you knew this response would placate me.
 
#107
#107
volinbham said:
A change in tax rate is an entire market effect just as the examples you cite above.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it is not, and absolutely it is not the same.

<< Econ 101

Did you want to rethink? Shall I ask exactly how raising Buffett's taxes (or Berk Hath) affects labor prices in China?
 
Last edited:
#108
#108
GAVol said:
Here's a quality response.

They Already Have Their Money | Rebel Yid - Ideas beyond the left/right, red/blue, and liberal/conservative thinking
Click to expand...

Actually, it's the same neoliberal rehash that I've already scattered, smothered, and covered more than 100 times this summer alone.

Taxing progressively works.

Protecting industries work.

Restricting capital flight works.

National health works.

It raises wealth, health, and well-being of the population at large with no real impact on the bourgeoisie. These are no brainers with a "wealth" of history and a host of examples in the real world outside the back door.
 
#109
#109
utgibbs said:
Actually, it's the same neoliberal rehash that I've already scattered, smothered, and covered more than 100 times this summer alone.

Taxing progressively works.

Protecting industries work.

Restricting capital flight works.

National health works.

It raises wealth, health, and well-being of the population at large with no real impact on the bourgeoisie. These are no brainers with a "wealth" of history and a host of examples in the real world outside the back door.
Click to expand...
You didnt do dick toward refuting the link. You don't have enough knowledge to do it and if you did, you wouldn't try.

Protecting industries might have merit, but if it lends to your idiotic points about wage growth in perpetuity, it's as idiotic as your moronic rants about the death of buzhwa capital.

We've had a progressive tax system forever.


Restricting capital flight is utterly retarded, on almost every level.

National healthcare has nothing to do with it and isn't the boon you're proclaiming. In fact, linking it to economic prosperity is, again, retarded.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#110
#110
BigPapaVol said:
You didnt do dick toward refuting the link. You don't have enough knowledge to do it and if you did, you wouldn't try.

Protecting industries might have merit, but if it lends to your idiotic points about wage growth in perpetuity, it's as idiotic as your moronic rants about the death of buzhwa capital.

We've had a progressive tax system forever.


Restricting capital flight is utterly retarded, on almost every level.

National healthcare has nothing to do with it and isn't the boon you're proclaiming. In fact, linking it to economic prosperity is, again, retarded.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

+1
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#111
#111
In 2001, the year after the evil George W Bush was elected, the top .1%, 1%, 5% and 10%, paid 16.06%, 33.89%, 53.25% and 64.89%, respectively, of total federal income taxes paid. In 2008, the most current year available from the IRS and the last year of the reign of "W, the Perpetually Blamed", collections from those same group of taxpayers were 18.47%, 38.02%, 58.72% and 69.94%. In 2001, the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid
3.97% of total federal income taxes paid. By 2008, their % of taxes paid decreased to 2.70%.
In 2008, the average tax rate for the top 1% of taxpayers was 23.27%, down from 27.50% in 2001. The average tax rate paid for those in the lower 50% was a whopping 2.59%, down from 4.09%.

UTGIBBS, do you see a pattern here? The average tax rate of the rich declined but the total amount of taxes collected from them increased. Instead of demagoguing the tax issue in an attempt to pander to his base, the Organizer in Chief should be killing the rich with kindness.

Please avail yourself of tax statistics at http://taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html#Data instead of pulling misinformation out of your ass.
 
Last edited:
#114
#114
Redstater said:
In 2001, the year after the evil George W Bush was elected, the top .1%, 1%, 5% and 10%, paid 16.06%, 33.89%, 53.25% and 64.89%, respectively, of total federal income taxes paid. In 2008, the most current year available from the IRS and the last year of the reign of "W, the Perpetually Blamed", collections from those same group of taxpayers were 18.47%, 38.02%, 58.72% and 69.94%. In 2001, the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid
3.97% of total federal income taxes paid. By 2008, their % of taxes paid decreased to 2.70%.
In 2008, the average tax rate for the top 1% of taxpayers was 23.27%, down from 27.50% in 2001. The average tax rate paid for those in the lower 50% was a whopping 2.59%, down from 4.09%.

UTGIBBS, do you see a pattern here? The average tax rate of the rich declined but the total amount of taxes collected from them increased. Instead of demagoguing the tax issue in an attempt to pander to his base, the Organizer in Chief should be killing the rich with kindness.

Please avail yourself of tax statistics at The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data instead of pulling misinformation out of your ass.
Click to expand...

So, we had more tax revenue, eh?

US+Tax+Revenues+plunge.jpg


I think it's rather hilarious to be using the Tax Foundation - a known reactionary group - and then tell me I'm talking out my azz.

Real world outside the back door biyotch slap.

In addition, your argument is just ridiculous anyway. When 1% own over half the country, of course total revenue must come from there. All you have done is CONFIRM how very regressive the tax structure is. That bottom 50% own much less than 4% of the country.
 
#115
#115
there's 24 million unemployed and under-employed people in the US, of course tax revenues are going to be down
 
#117
#117
Hold up. What the hell was that blue line thingamajiggy? Almost looked like corporate taxes, but that can't be, since they don't pay any.

Did anybody else catch that the most outlandish clown on the site called a group reactionary?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#118
#118
BigPapaVol said:
Hold up. What the hell was that blue line thingamajiggy? Almost looked like corporate taxes, but that can't be, since they don't pay any.

Did anybody else catch that the most outlandish clown on the site called a group reactionary?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Didn't have my glasses on. Thought the blue line was O's approval rating.
 
#119
#119
BigPapaVol said:
Hold up. What the hell was that blue line thingamajiggy? Almost looked like corporate taxes, but that can't be, since they don't pay any.

Did anybody else catch that the most outlandish clown on the site called a group reactionary?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

plus one
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#120
#120
utgibbs said:
So, we had more tax revenue, eh?

US+Tax+Revenues+plunge.jpg


I think it's rather hilarious to be using the Tax Foundation - a known reactionary group - and then tell me I'm talking out my azz.

Real world outside the back door biyotch slap.

In addition, your argument is just ridiculous anyway. When 1% own over half the country, of course total revenue must come from there. All you have done is CONFIRM how very regressive the tax structure is. That bottom 50% own much less than 4% of the country.
Click to expand...

Go here Tax Statistics - Produced by the Statistics of Income Division and Other Areas of the Internal Revenue Service It's funny how multiplication, division, adding and subtracting usually work the same even if you are reactionary. Also, let me know which you think is more cogently presented.

I assumed you knew the difference between wealth and income. My bad. It seemed the string was a disscussion about taxes on income, not on wealth.

But if you want to discuss wealth, here's site for you Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power It turns out the the top 1% control about 35% of the net worth of the country. If you want to tax that more, start a thread titled "Let's raise the estate tax". Since Buffett is donating most of his estate to the Gates Fdn, he'll put his money where his mouth is but you'd think he'd just donate it to the Fed to apply to the debt.
 
Last edited:
#122
#122
People as rich as Warren Buffett are often completely detached from reality. They live in another world
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#123
#123
utgibbs said:
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?
Click to expand...

I work for a multibillion dollar company and I deal extensively with accounting. In my company, we count taxes paid in this fiscal year as a loss in this fiscal year. We report it as such in our stockholders report. Any money spent, that lessens the net profits, are considered losses.

Also, GM can charge anything they want for an AVEO. That is an invalid question. The correct question would be: what can GM actually sell an AVEO for?

You have made a semi-valid point unintentionally though. There is a limit to how much of the cost of taxes can be passed on to consumers in the case of non-essential items. In the case of essentials, the entirety of the tax can be passed on. The company does not eat that tax though. It finds a way to cut costs. Usually resulting in an inferior product/service, lower wages to the working stiff, and less benefits.

So if you want to screw the little guy, raise taxes on the big guy.
 
#125
#125
golfballs03 said:
People as rich as Warren Buffett are often completely detached from reality. They live in another world
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It's funny, the same day Buffet echoed Obama's 'tax
the rich' mantra, I read an op-ed he wrote on how to
avoid paying taxes.

Anyway the 'tax the rich' class warfare rhetoric is as
hollow as a drum, the really rich have their money
tucked away in tax exempt trusts and the international
moneyed elite which own and control much of this
country avoid most of the taxes and our sky high
corporate taxes merely urge them to move opperations
and corporate headquarters to other countries.

trainwn.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top