- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,560
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Legitimate argument if he was a mail clerk or stock boy at BH.
Or is lie by omission one of the "turn the other cheek" rules liberals adopted during the Clinton administration?
I'm dying to know.
From what I have read it was 46m...approx 100k in actual 'salary' and the remainder coming from hedge funds and capital gains...all taxed at different rates. Now...mind you...you have to get through about a dozen or so pages of nothing but conservative web sites to GET to a non Glen Beck type site to do any actual investigation on the Buffet rule and the lie that is 'I pay less than my secretary'. I had to go to one of my favorite very liberal leaning sites (truthdig.com) to get a decent breakdown. Even they are trying to justify the Buffetrule...but still point out the factual breakdowns and disparities. (link at end of post).His personal income for 2009 I think it was was 62 million. Care to try again.
I know what it means. Warren Buffett is volunteering everyone else to pay more taxes based on the "my secretary pays more.......blah blah" bull that he spews, all while taking more in capitol gains to avoid the higher income tax percentage. Then it is found out Buffett's fund is delinquent on taxes....avoidant behavior if you ask me. Nope, hypocrite fits quite nicely.
EDIT- Fat, disingenuous, lying, piece of **** also fit in that equation nicely too.
the real hypocrisy is that asswipe whining about his secretary's rates when he structures his compensation to be such that his earned income is artificially low
you know as well as I do that similarly situated executives-ones who cannot control their compensation package nearly as much as WB-normally are compensated with salaries in the several million dollar range.
Buffett's salary is less than what a federal public defender makes
Redress said:There is no lie by omission either. He correctly stated his personal income tax, while discussing personal income tax. Corporate income tax is not the same thing as personal income tax.
Redress, I respect you but you're the one twisting here. Buffett argues against the system but he still uses it, thus he is being quite disingenuous. That would be like me going to my competition's client and saying he's a wife beating, deadbeat dad, alcoholic and then asking for a rule against that kind of slander after the fact. As has been pointed out, if the loopholes disgust him that much he certainly didn't have to use them.Only if you twist facts. He never claimed any one should pay more than they owe, but that the method he uses to keep his tax rates low exists. It's funny how you cannot actually argue against his point and are forced to just attack him and think no one will notice.
From what I have read it was 46m...approx 100k in actual 'salary' and the remainder coming from hedge funds and capital gains...all taxed at different rates. Now...mind you...you have to get through about a dozen or so pages of nothing but conservative web sites to GET to a non Glen Beck type site to do any actual investigation on the Buffet rule and the lie that is 'I pay less than my secretary'. I had to go to one of my favorite very liberal leaning sites (truthdig.com) to get a decent breakdown. Even they are trying to justify the Buffetrule...but still point out the factual breakdowns and disparities. (link at end of post).
But heres the thing...NOTHING 'makes' Warren Buffet utilize every loophole and tax 'cheat' he can take advantage of. that is the CORE of hypocrisy...saying one thing and doing another. If Buffet BELIEVED his bull****, then he wouldnt be DOING it. The IRS doesnt hunt down taxpayers and tell them...oh....hey...you missed a ton of deduction opportunities. No...in fact...Buffet hires at least one and Im certaina FIRM full of people to find those loopholes and claim every single one of them.
E.J. Dionne, Jr.: Why They Hate Warren Buffett - Truthdig
Buffett revealed in a letter sent to Huelskamp that his adjusted gross income was $62,855,038 last year and that he paid $15,300 in payroll taxes,
Redress, I respect you but you're the one twisting here. Buffett argues against the system but he still uses it, thus he is being quite disingenuous. That would be like me going to my competition's client and saying he's a wife beating, deadbeat dad, alcoholic and then asking for a rule against that kind of slander after the fact. As has been pointed out, if the loopholes disgust him that much he certainly didn't have to use them.
This one is from the HuPo no less...His personal income for 2009 I think it was was 62 million. Care to try again.
Buffett revealed in a letter sent to Huelskamp that his adjusted gross income was $62,855,038 last year and that he paid $15,300 in payroll taxes,
This one is from the HuPo no less...
"It is certainly possible that Bosanek pays a higher portion of her income in taxes than Buffett. (In his recent New York Times op-ed, Buffett says he pays the lowest rate of all the staffers in his office.) Even with the gifted stock, she likely makes most of her money in wages. Buffett makes nearly all his money from investments, benefiting from a spate of breaks and loopholes. But as a general point, Buffett is wrong: In aggregate, richer earners do pay higher rates."
I do not think you understand what the word disingenuous means either. He has been quite clear that he does these things. That is the point, that those things are there.
I got the 62 number from here: Warren Buffett releases tax figures to GOP - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
It is only hypocrisy if you fail to understand his point. His point is that these methods of reducing taxes are there, not that people should not use them.
I get the point, though. It's like me saying that I shouldn't be able to get free cokes out of the machine because of a glitch while I use the glitch everyday to get free cokes. If I'm going to call out the practice I should be prepared to set an example until the glitch is corrected. There's nothing to stop him from sending more money to the IRS, or to correct his practices to avoid loop holes. He chooses not to while simultaneously complaining that they exist. It certainly makes him look a little dishonest about his concerns, if not his intent.
Paschendale said:So really, the company that Buffet is CEO of, mind you he's not their accountant, owes back taxes. There's nothing in this article to suggest that Buffet knew about this practice or signed off on it or that the tax issue comes from willful malice or a simple mistake. All we know is that he is involved in it, and you disagree with him.
None of this has anything to do with the validity of his message.
Criminy...seriously? He is claiming something that he is guilty of doing is wrong and shouldnt be done. If he believes it, he shouldnt be DOING it. Integrity...consistency...would be doing what you say you believe regardless of whether or not you CAN.
And BTW...unless he can lay down his tax paperwork next to his secretaries...he's still full of crap with his claim.
No, since one of that would be illegal, while not paying more in taxes than you actually owe is just smart and legal.
I read what he wrote. I read what Obama used as his whole 'Tax the rich' justification. He cherry picked a portion of his wealth to make a point so they could change the laws.Buffett made no claim about the aggregate. You should read what he wrote.
Admitting behavior doesn't excuse it, but while we are at this line of thinking if he was being totally honest and upfront then why would there be that large of a tax dispute? Usually those disputes come up because the IRS has questions about something that doesn't add up, in this case we have a billion somethings that didn't, you don't get that large of a tax bill by being an angel. Face it, Buffett is a grand example of hypocracy. Again, if Buffett is really losing sleep over the loopholes he exploits then why would he do it. I agree in using loopholes, just not doing so while acting like Buffett does basically crying crocodile tears.I do not think you understand what the word disingenuous means either. He has been quite clear that he does these things. That is the point, that those things are there.
Buffet has said he believes HE should be taxed at a higher rate, yet he hires teams of people to squeeze out every penny. He is a hypocrite. If he believes what he has said, then he shoudlnt need to be FORCED to do it...he should simply do it. Personal integrity and hypocrisy isnt governed by what someone else says or does...it is governed by what you the speaker say and do.Show me where Buffett has ever said any one should pay more in taxes than they owe. If you cannot do that, your point fails.
That is what we call a straw man. I simply pointed out the actual facts of the case, and by the way, he is not cheating on his taxes, his corporation is in dispute on what is owed. If you would care to argue with what I said as opposed to what you wish I had said, I would appreciate it.
I still fail to see how you can argue that his actions completely disregarding his speech is in no way dishonest, or could at least appear to be insincere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?