Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • Buffett's positions on loose women, pirates, and tequila interest me more.
  • You can always take advantage of a tax break even if it's the wrong thing to do for the country. See: Mitt Romney.
  • The examples the author quotes are not contradictory to his statement about too much taxes preventing investment.

    The first one is brokering a deal on splitting up a company he had already invested in. He called their bluff the best way to spin off the company. The second was using the tax code that was in existence. It only affected where he invested- not if he invested.
  • Marcus Aurelius: You can always take advantage of a tax break even if it's the wrong thing to do for the country. See: Mitt Romney.


    It's not that.. It's a competitive thing. If all your competitors are taking advantage of said tax loopholes then you're an idiot not to. What he's saying is to fix the loop holes and tax the ultra-rich on capital gains. Everyone will be on the same playing field and in this example the raping of Hostess never would have occurred because of the tax burden. That's one of many real-life examples of what would no longer happen if most of this shiat was taxed properly.
  • Regardless of Buffet's opinions on tax policy, he owes certain fiduciary duties to his fund(s) and their investors, including duties to make investment decisions that are in the best (financial) interest of the fund and the fund's investors. So, if a certain transaction structure yields tax advantages, Buffet may have a legal obligation to pursue those advantages on behalf of the fund/investors.
  • GOP: "Taxing the rich will hurt them and they're the job creators and that will hurt the economy!!!"

    Regular Joe: "Not one thing you said is true. We need to raise taxes on the rich to increase revenue in order to reduce our deficit. That will actually help the economy."

    GOP: "You're just jealous of rich people. Class warfare!!!"

    Buffet: "No, he's right. Not one thing you said is true. We need to raise taxes on the rich to increase revenue in order to reduce our deficit. That will actually help the economy."

    GOP: "You're just jealous of rich... err umm... STFU and give your money away then!"
  • Marcus Aurelius: You can always take advantage of a tax break even if it's the wrong thing to do for the country. See: Mitt Romney.


    I agree, but we need a moratorium on people criticizing "family values" republicans who get caught having affairs also.
  • impaler: GOP: "Taxing the rich will hurt them and they're the job creators and that will hurt the economy!!!"

    Regular Joe: "Not one thing you said is true. We need to raise taxes on the rich to increase revenue in order to reduce our deficit. That will actually help the economy."

    GOP: "You're just jealous of rich people. Class warfare!!!"

    Buffet: "No, he's right. Not one thing you said is true. We need to raise taxes on the rich to increase revenue in order to reduce our deficit. That will actually help the economy."

    GOP: "You're just jealous of rich... err umm... STFU and give your money away then!"


    This is a very accurate summation.
  • xynix: Marcus Aurelius: You can always take advantage of a tax break even if it's the wrong thing to do for the country. See: Mitt Romney.

    It's not that.. It's a competitive thing. If all your competitors are taking advantage of said tax loopholes then you're an idiot not to. What he's saying is to fix the loop holes and tax the ultra-rich on capital gains. Everyone will be on the same playing field and in this example the raping of Hostess never would have occurred because of the tax burden. That's one of many real-life examples of what would no longer happen if most of this shiat was taxed properly.


    No. What he's saying is, "raise taxes in a way that gives more rich people incentive to buy insurance from companies I own." Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

    Do you imagine that rich people are just going to shrug their shoulders and accept it if taxes are raised? Of course not! They're going to do the same thing everyone does when the rules change: make the most of it. If that means foregoing capital gains on options in lieu of deferred payment in the form of pre-tax writedowns on generous insurance policies negotiated into business contracts, they'll do that. And who made his original fortune on insurance companies he still owns? Yep, one Warren E. Buffet, billionaire.

    Contra subby, there is no difference between Buffet the columnist and Buffet the investor. There is only Buffet the investor.
  • Marcus Aurelius: You can always take advantage of a tax break even if it's the wrong thing to do for the country. See: Mitt Romney.


    He paid more than he had to.
  • gerrymander: xynix: Marcus Aurelius: You can always take advantage of a tax break even if it's the wrong thing to do for the country. See: Mitt Romney.

    It's not that.. It's a competitive thing. If all your competitors are taking advantage of said tax loopholes then you're an idiot not to. What he's saying is to fix the loop holes and tax the ultra-rich on capital gains. Everyone will be on the same playing field and in this example the raping of Hostess never would have occurred because of the tax burden. That's one of many real-life examples of what would no longer happen if most of this shiat was taxed properly.

    No. What he's saying is, "raise taxes in a way that gives more rich people incentive to buy insurance from companies I own." Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

    Do you imagine that rich people are just going to shrug their shoulders and accept it if taxes are raised? Of course not! They're going to do the same thing everyone does when the rules change: make the most of it. If that means foregoing capital gains on options in lieu of deferred payment in the form of pre-tax writedowns on generous insurance policies negotiated into business contracts, they'll do that. And who made his original fortune on insurance companies he still owns? Yep, one Warren E. Buffet, billionaire.

    Contra subby, there is no difference between Buffet the columnist and Buffet the investor. There is only Buffet the investor.


    The psychological manipulation you have to make on yourself to come out with such bullshiat is astonishing. You must intentionally choose to examine the facts and then discard them at will.
  • It's "Nelly". As though to a horse.

    "Woah, Nelly!"
  • GAT_00: The psychological manipulation you have to make on yourself to come out with such bullshiat is astonishing. You must intentionally choose to examine the facts and then discard them at will.

    Ad hominem

    aside, what part or parts specifically do you find flawed in my analysis?

    Can't be Buffet's ownership of insurance companies. That's public record, courtesy every Berkshire Hathaway quarterly statement.

    That leaves A) rich people will adapt, B) the adaption will involve shifting tax deductions and reported income, and/or C) buying insurance is a method of shifting deductions and income. Which of these do you consider bullshiat, exactly?
  • gerrymander: what part or parts specifically do you find flawed in my analysis?


    Where you declare that any 1% should be listened to, until a 1% suddenly says something you don't like. Then they're wrong because you say they're wrong.
  • GAT_00: gerrymander: what part or parts specifically do you find flawed in my analysis?

    Where you declare that any 1% should be listened to, until a 1% suddenly says something you don't like. Then they're wrong because you say they're wrong.


    I never said Buffet was wrong -- because being trivially right (and yes, a tax projected to raise an extra $3.5 billion in revenue is trivial compared to a projected $1,300 billion deficit) is still right.

    What I did say is that Buffet has an ulterior motive -- which is transparent to anyone with a brain. Why do you only object to the idea that the 1% has ulterior motives when they say something you like?
  • The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: You can always take advantage of a tax break even if it's the wrong thing to do for the country. See: Mitt Romney.

    He paid more than he had to.


    Heh.
  • gerrymander: GAT_00: gerrymander: what part or parts specifically do you find flawed in my analysis?

    Where you declare that any 1% should be listened to, until a 1% suddenly says something you don't like. Then they're wrong because you say they're wrong.

    I never said Buffet was wrong -- because being trivially right (and yes, a tax projected to raise an extra $3.5 billion in revenue is trivial compared to a projected $1,300 billion deficit) is still right.

    What I did say is that Buffet has an ulterior motive -- which is transparent to anyone with a brain. Why do you only object to the idea that the 1% has ulterior motives when they say something you like?


    This "logic" is hilarious. "I never said he was wrong, just that he was contradicting himself in a way that meant what he said earlier must be wrong. But I didn't directly SAY he was wrong."
  • Calmamity: Sorry, pet pony.


    [seeswhatyoudidthere.jpg]
  • The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: You can always take advantage of a tax break even if it's the wrong thing to do for the country. See: Mitt Romney.

    He paid more than he had to.


    Until we find out that he took advantage of filing an amended return. Although we'll probably never find that out publicly. But I'm pretty sure it will happen.
  • gerrymander: GAT_00: The psychological manipulation you have to make on yourself to come out with such bullshiat is astonishing. You must intentionally choose to examine the facts and then discard them at will.

    Ad hominem aside, what part or parts specifically do you find flawed in my analysis?

    Can't be Buffet's ownership of insurance companies. That's public record, courtesy every Berkshire Hathaway quarterly statement.

    That leaves A) rich people will adapt, B) the adaption will involve shifting tax deductions and reported income, and/or C) buying insurance is a method of shifting deductions and income. Which of these do you consider bullshiat, exactly?


    Can I take "D: Move to Belize and open a topless bar on the beach"?
  • Looks like he may have 'negotiated' to get the best deal on the transaction. Part of that transaction included taxes.

    Holy fark, what a hypocrite.
  • Nezorf: impaler: GOP: "Taxing the rich will hurt them and they're the job creators and that will hurt the economy!!!"

    Regular Joe: "Not one thing you said is true. We need to raise taxes on the rich to increase revenue in order to reduce our deficit. That will actually help the economy."

    GOP: "You're just jealous of rich people. Class warfare!!!"

    Buffet: "No, he's right. Not one thing you said is true. We need to raise taxes on the rich to increase revenue in order to reduce our deficit. That will actually help the economy."

    GOP: "You're just jealous of rich... err umm... STFU and give your money away then!"

    This is a very accurate summation.


    Except that you're not allowed to call them "rich" anymore. It hurts their feelings.
  • I'm struggling to see the issue here. So anyone who thinks their taxes are too low are obliged to give all their money to the government?
  • Marcus Aurelius: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: You can always take advantage of a tax break even if it's the wrong thing to do for the country. See: Mitt Romney.

    He paid more than he had to.

    Heh.




    Only during an election year, to look good.

    What did he pay in any other year? Oh, right we have no idea.
  • Load 25 of 117 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.