Buffett Debunks Galtism

[cal50]

The release of his tax returns would have revealed whether he participated in the Swiss Bank Amnesty program. So we will never know.

 

 

 

 

Ah, hypothetical charges of wrong doing Vs politicians already here and "working" that failed to pay their own taxes as determined by the IRS and not speculation.

Some can not see the forest through the trees......

[xr7g428]

Mark, Glass house? Imagine all of the other things we will never know about.... if only the documents were unsealed. LOL!

[RangerM]

The release of his tax returns would have revealed whether he participated in the Swiss Bank Amnesty program. So we will never know.

And in the meantime, if he's convicted (in the minds of the people) without the evidence to support it, then so be it.

 

I'll have to remember if I'm ever accused of something that I have to prove my innocence.

[NickF1011]

The release of his tax returns would have revealed whether he participated in the Swiss Bank Amnesty program. So we will never know.

 

You mean the tax returns the IRS has obviously already seen?

[grbeck]

As Nick has noted, the IRS has already seen Romney's tax returns. The idea that the general public is going to find out more from Romney's tax returns than trained IRS agents whose job it is to look for such things is quite a stretch.

 

I'm more worried about notable figures who "forget" to pay their federal income taxes...only problem is that they all seem to be cabinet officials in the current administration, not Republican presidential candidates.

[retro-man]

I don't think we'e talking about whether something is legal or not. A lot of chicanery hides behind the law. The fact is, he was running as the man to solve the middle class problem, and if people saw that he paid little or no taxes on a huge (unearned) income, it would put a bad taste in their mouths - legal or not. That is most likely the reason he didn't disclose.

 

 

It is possible to behave ethically under the law - let us remind here that "legal" and "ethical" are two different words carrying two different meanings. It is also possible to work the system. It's not just welfare bums who know how to do that.

 

Edited November 29, 2012 by retro-man

[NickF1011]

I don't think we'e talking about whether something is legal or not. A lot of chicanery hides behind the law. The fact is, he was running as the man to solve the middle class problem, and if people saw that he paid little or no taxes on a huge (unearned) income, it would put a bad taste in their mouths - legal or not. That is most likely the reason he didn't disclose.

 

 

It is possible to behave decently under the law, and it is possible to behave indecently under the law.

 

 

 

So let it put a bad taste in people's mouths. But don't crucify him of something he hasn't done. Warren Buffett, self-anointed "crusader for the middle class", does all the same chicanery and doesn't get put under the same microscope. It's a double standard that exists for no reason other than party affiliation.

Edited November 29, 2012 by NickF1011

[TomServo92]

 

 

So let it put a bad taste in people's mouths. But don't crucify him of something he hasn't done. Warren Buffett, self-anointed "crusader for the middle class", does all the same chicanery and doesn't get put under the same microscope. It's a double standard that exists for no reason other than party affiliation.

 

Bingo!

[xr7g428]

Yes I see it now... Every one that makes more money that you is a criminal. You can remove the chains now please.

 

Liberal definition of tolerance: if you don't agree with me, then you are a racist and a bigot.

[TomServo92]

Yes I see it now... Every one that makes more money that you is a criminal. You can remove the chains now please.

 

Liberal definition of tolerance: if you don't agree with me, then you are a racist and a bigot.

 

And a greedy, criminal bastard.

[RangerM]

It is possible to behave ethically under the law - let us remind here that "legal" and "ethical" are two different words carrying two different meanings.

The meaning of words seems to vary, however.

 

Voting one's wallet is common sense for one person, and greed for another.

 

Reducing the rate of growth is a cut.

 

Cutting taxes for some is not paying one's fair share, and cutting taxes for others is synonymous with sending them money they didn't earn in the first place (a refundable tax credit).

[goinbroke2]

 

It is possible to behave ethically under the law - let us remind here that "legal" and "ethical" are two different words carrying two different meanings. It is also possible to work the system. It's not just welfare bums who know how to do that.

 

Hold on Retro, your saying I'm not ethical because I get a huge portion of my taxes back through legal "loopholes"??? You insinuate that if I made millions, and did the same thing I'd be unethical, but if I make $30,000 to 60,000 a year and do it, I AM ethical? Is there a cut off point where you go from being ethical to unethical while doing the same thing? Is it $250,000??

 

Unethical would be taking a deduction you know you didn't earn...no wait that's illegal...well if you...no wait that's illegal too...hmmm...if you follow the law according to the irs...then you are legal and ethical. Or are you going to say getting a $5000 deduction for homeless donations is ethical, but $5000 deduction for your education/etc is unethical?

 

I make X amount and legally I can deduct Y amount. Period. Don't try and tell me HOW I should spend my money or what I should spend it on or even what to do to get "ethical" deductions.

I have money = I am unethical, criminal, cheat, evil.

I don't have money = ethical, law abiding, caring.

 

51% of you deserve what you get.

[RangerM]

.....I'm not ethical because I get a huge portion of my taxes back through legal "loopholes"??? You insinuate that if I made millions, and did the same thing I'd be unethical, but if I make $30,000 to 60,000 a year and do it, I AM ethical? Is there a cut off point where you go from being ethical to unethical while doing the same thing? Is it $250,000??

 

I don't have an answer for you, GB. But I suspect that when you discover the answer, you'll also know the dividing line between "giving" and "giving back".

[Mark B. Morrow]

You mean the tax returns the IRS has obviously already seen?

 

The point of the Amnesty was that the taxes were paid and the returns amended. No criminal charges were instituted against those who participated. It would explain the reason Romney refused to release the returns as his father did. No less a conservative than George Will opined that Romney made the political calculation that releasing the returns was more damaging than refusing to do so.

[NickF1011]

The point of the Amnesty was that the taxes were paid and the returns amended. No criminal charges were instituted against those who participated. It would explain the reason Romney refused to release the returns as his father did. No less a conservative than George Will opined that Romney made the political calculation that releasing the returns was more damaging than refusing to do so.

 

So do we know for a fact that Warren Buffett didn't also participate in this amnesty program? No one is asking for him to release his returns.

[30 OTT 6]

Has anyone demonstrated in any way that anything Romney did with his offshore accounts was in any way illegal? If not, then all the IRS agents in the world wouldn't prevent him from taking advantage of loopholes to "get away with" his greed.

 

There's nothing illegal about finger banging an intern in the Oval Office but many frown upon that too.

[NickF1011]

There's nothing illegal about finger banging an intern in the Oval Office but many frown upon that too.

 

No red herring there at all. Nope.

[grbeck]

So do we know for a fact that Warren Buffett didn't also participate in this amnesty program? No one is asking for him to release his returns.

 

Do we even know for a fact that Romney did? Right now, we are just getting speculation regarding what people THINK they know, or hope is true.

 

Somehow, if he had participated in the program, I'm having a hard time believing that this wouldn't have been mysteriously "leaked" to the media. Wasn't some group making noise about having obtained his tax returns before the election?

[xr7g428]

Seriously? Mark, time for you to put up, or shut up. Post the last ten years of your tax returns. What do you have to lose? LOL!

 

This is why sane people would never consider running for office.

 

I pay a CPA good money to make sure that I don't pay a nickle more than I have to. If he didn't do that, it would be considered at a minimum, ineptitude, and maybe malpractice. No client has ever asked my CPA for ways to pay more taxes. On at least two separate occasions I have had the IRS recalculate my taxes and then send money back to me saying that I had over paid. My accountant is convinced they were in error, but what can you do?

 

I could spend a week with that same CPA reviewing my tax returns and I know that at the end of it all I still would not have the slightest idea if they were correctly filed or not.

 

So no, I would NEVER consider publishing 10 years of my returns and any one who would is an idiot.

[RangerM]

(Does this meet with the same enthusiasm, Retro?)

 

Costco to spend $3 billion on special $7-a-share dividend

Retailer rolls out big payout ahead of year-end tax uncertainty

 

"Costco will spend $3 billion to pay a special dividend of $7 a share next month ahead of higher tax rates that may kick in come January.

The Issaquah-based company joins a growing number of U.S. companies, from Wynn Resorts to Tyson Foods, that are announcing special dividends at four times the pace of last year ahead of pending tax increases in 2013. The rate on dividends, which was reduced to 15 percent during the George W. Bush administration, is set to go up as President Obama and Congress work to draw more revenue from top earners."

 

[RangerM]

I pay a CPA good money to make sure that I don't pay a nickle more than I have to.

For everyone dying to bring back the tax rates of 20, 30, or 50 years ago, why do they ignore the fact that the revenue collected (as percentage of GDP) was lower than the historical average then? It's only during economic good times that the IRS collected more than the historical average revenue.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government is spending waAAAAAay above the historical average, and we have the weakest recovery on record.

 

Why can't anyone explain how taking money out of the private economy improves it; especially when the extra taxes that would be theoretically collected wouldn't even cover the annual deficit?

[retro-man]

It's the weakest recovery since WWII, not the weakest on record. I think it's important to make that distinction. It's not a weaker recovery than from The Great Depression - an event with which it was on par. (It would have been every bit as severe if not for the mechanisms put in place during the Depression.) It's not a weaker recovery than other countries are having from the same event. Credit bubble collapses going back to the Panic of 1893 have been characterized by slow recoveries since, by their very nature, they involve a long period of debt reduction during a slow economy - a double handicap. There is no fast recovery from a credit bubble bust. Rather than point out the obvious and inevitable: it's a slow recovery, why don't we just go back to pointing the finger at who caused it: a bunch of liberal bleeding hearts and their screw-up friends who wanted to own houses and consumer goods they couldn't afford, or a rogue financial system unchained by a militantly anti-regulatory Washington establishment, starry-eyed with their childlike Friedmanian faith in "the markets", presiding over an economy whose real fundamentals had long since been gutted by globalization and financialization. http://www.washingto...ourse/?page=all http://www.mckinsey...._path_to_growth

 

 

p.s. Nothing wrong with dividends. Compared with relying on share prices and market churn to generate investor rewards it seems to me they would tend to incentivize a longer-term view toward the health of a company.

Edited November 30, 2012 by retro-man

[Langston Hughes]

Yes I see it now... Every one that makes more money that you is a criminal. You can remove the chains now please.

 

Liberal definition of tolerance: if you don't agree with me, then you are a racist and a bigot.

 

LOL.

 

Conservative definition of tolerance (straight outta O'Reilly's mouth): If you didn't vote for Mitt Romney your a minority who only wants free stuff and are destroying the majority white culture that America was founded on. (I wonder how the Liberal definition came about?)

[grbeck]

Regulations have been tightened over the financial and banking sectors since the savings-and-loan debacle of the late 1980s, starting with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991. Total government expenditures for regulation of the finance and banking sector were increased by 26 percent during the second Bush presidency.

 

Nor have we allowed markets to run amok. If anything, the present crisis is the result of massive government intervention in the real estate and financial markets:

 

http://www.businessi...rs-guide-2009-6

 

Nobody is criticizing the payment of dividends. Costco executives apparently supported the re-election of President Obama, which means they supported his position on increasing federal income taxes. Now those same executives have approved a plan that spends company money to pull ahead the payment of dividends. This will avoid potentially higher tax rates on those dividends.

 

If Costco is like most other companies, I'm willing to bet that Costco executives own a fair amount of Costco stock.

 

Looks like more hypocrisy in action...if higher taxes are so great, then why not pay them?

Edited November 30, 2012 by grbeck

[RangerM]

It's the weakest recovery since WWII, not the weakest on record. I think it's important to make that distinction.

I stand corrected, however can you answer the question I asked?

 

If the (private economic) recovery is weak, how is taking money out of the private economy going to improve it?

 

Do you believe that our goal should be to improve the economy (which is how we've grown revenues in the past) or to pay for the increased spending?

 

p.s. Nothing wrong with dividends. Compared with relying on share prices and market churn to generate investor rewards it seems to me they would tend to incentivize a longer-term view toward the health of a company.

The dividend was based on avoiding taxes in the short term. Doesn't this raise the expectation of a lower share price, if the ROI can be expected to go down?

 

From the article I'd posted earlier......

Among the biggest beneficiaries of Costco’s special dividend will be co-founders Jim Sinegal and Jeffrey Brotman, and Chief Executive Officer Craig Jelinek.

 

Sinegal, who retired as Costco’s CEO at the end of 2011 but remains on the board, and various related entities together own more than 2 million Costco shares, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). His payout from the special dividend will be about $14.4 million.

 

Brotman, Costco’s chairman, and various family members and related entities together own 734,834 shares, making the special dividend worth $5.1 million to him. Jelinek owns 197,142 shares and will receive $1.4 million.

 

Though Costco had more than $3.5 billion in cash and equivalents as of Sept. 2, it plans to pay for the special dividend by issuing new debt. It sold $3.5 billion of debt Wednesday, its first offering in almost six years

Retro, does the issuing of new debt contribute to the long term health of the company, or did the CEO give himself a nice payout? Is that hypocrisy?

Edited November 30, 2012 by RangerM