Welcome to PatsFans.com

Buffett's secretary is the 1%

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Wolfpack, Jan 25, 2012.

  1. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    She is being used as a political prop by Obama. Of course Buffett is a liar also he has structured his compensation package from Berkshire Hathaway so that his income is capital gains and not a paid salary.


    If Buffett was interested in "paying his fair share" he would structure his compensation package so he was paid salary instead of paid from capital gains.

    So what does Buffett get from being s shill for Obozo...... The Keystone pipeline is cancelled it was to be used not only for Canadian oil but also for oil being recovered from the Bakken formation, so how will that oil get to the refineries? Why on railways owned by none other that Mr Buffett.

    Suckers.


  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Darn, Wolfie, you seem confused again. There's no argument that she should pay a higher tax rate on her income over $250k, and so should Buffet. Perhaps you don't understand marginal rates. Buffet should pay that higher tax rate, too, and I would guess his income over $250k is much higher than that of his secretary. So, why in the world is he paying less?

    That she gets a great salary has nothing to do with anything. What in the world is your point? Obama's point is that Warren Buffet should pay more taxes than a secretary, even a well paid one, and I think it's the righties who claim that $250k is not all that much in these times, especially if you have a family.

    Quit waging class warfare. :rofl: :rofl:
  4. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    You mean she likely is?

    If she pays less as a % than he does, it doesn't matter that she makes $200k -- if she does (not sure why he's assuming no capital gains -- I'd expect that she has a good chunk of stock if she's been with him a long time)
  5. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    Where's the lie, 13?


    You're missing the point, not surprisingly.

    Also not surprisingly, it's lost on you that most shareholders want their CEOs making more from stock holdings and less from salary -- as his comp is structured.
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Are you waging class warfare? You sound jealous of Buffet. Buffet apparently plays by the rules. No one has said otherwise. The rules should be changed, but until they are there is no reason for him not to play by the same set of rules as everyone else.
  7. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    the pubbies are confused about all of this -- it's why they're now attacking Romney for his success :rofl:
  8. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'm going to save this post and quote it word for word when someone (probably you) talks about Romney and his taxes.
  9. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    Now Newt's really screwed...
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3


    The lie is that Buffet proclaims that he is for higher taxes for 'the rich' such as him but in his behavior he structures his compensation package to minimize his taxes so he pays far less that what he wants others to pay.

    Perhaps Hypocrite would be better than lair, make you feel better?







    You wouldn't know the point if it you were stuck in the butt with the point in most discussions.
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3





    Of course I am against class warfare. I favor a flat tax where EVERYONE is treated equally and pays the same rate. I leave the politics of envy to you and you lefty heroes.


    As to Buffet what I object to is crony capitalism where he gets the government to help him become more wealthy when working class pay the bills (higher energy cost) for his political donations.
  12. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    You should learn what both terms mean. Using them incorrectly just makes you look childish.


    Poor 13, can't structure a logical argument so he has to resort to personal attacks.

    Look, pookie, you've made it abundantly clear that your business knowledge would be exceeded by most girl scouts who've sold thin mints. So maybe you should just go back to touting Herman Cain's 9-9-9-9 plan and leave the discussion of taxes, forms of income, compensation structures and corporations to the adults. :rolleyes:
  13. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Always great to see a moderator violates the rules on personal attacks, and then we are supposed to take him seriously when he tries to moderate this board????:confused::confused::confused:

    Personally prefer to be called a lair.. even though it makes no sense..

    I always find the posts of this moderator, underwhelming and quite base... and there is no wonder that these threads often descend into a sewer of contentiousness.. and guess who likes this response???

    Lemmings rock on, and follow along..
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    The flat tax is so unfair! It's class warfare! Why should someone who earns $1,000,000/year have to pay 10x more tax than someone who earns $100,000/year for the same services? My god, I think you're a socialist!!!

    As far as Buffet goes, do those feelings apply to the Koch brothers (who some say would have benefited from Keystone, thus the Republican enthusiasm for the project) and others in a similar boat. Yet, ironically, I'm guessing, like most obedient Republicans, you're okay with Citizens United. You can't have it both ways, pf.
  15. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3






    I view it as equal protection under the law. Everyone pays the same even Mitt Romney and Buffer.

    Does it make you a communist that you want the person making 1M to pay 40x more than the person making 100k?
  16. JackBauer

    JackBauer Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    So you're not a big fan of Adam Smith, huh?
  17. JackBauer

    JackBauer Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    The point, if you or PF13 had been paying attention, isn't that Romney is evil for not paying taxes. Rather, his absurd tax burden of 13.9 percent is symptomatic of a broken system that Republicans have no intention of fixing, which is probably why Mitt's tax plan would raise taxes on those making <40,000, while cutting taxes further for the wealthy.

    Yep, he comes right from the streets of America alright.
  18. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Warren Buffett plays with himself.
  19. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I just don't see any evidence that there is anything "broken" in that above number. Once you take out Romney's charitable deduction (you do believe there should be deductions allowed for charity, right?) he paid a roughly 16% tax rate.

    The reason why his rate is so low isn't because he is rich, it's because his money comes from long term capital gains. The long term capital gains rate is already high enough, not to mention it represents money which has already been taxed and taxed again.

    I know liberals don't care about destroying jobs (liberals love having as many people depend on government assistance as possible) but raising the long term capital gains rate would be a pretty good way to do just that.
  20. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    careful, wolfie and BF are going to call you either stupid or a liar for thinking / claiming that everybody pays the same amount in taxes...

    (even though you clearly are referring to the rate paid, not the dollar amount)
  21. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    No, it doesn't, no matter how many times you claim it to be the case.
  22. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    If an investment loses value, does one get to claim that on their tax returns as a deduction?

    I'd guess that is true...if you have to pay taxes on gains, you should be able deduct losses. Assuming this, if one were to invest $100 and lose $50 in a given year and then experience a gain back to $100 the next year, the taxes owed should all wash out.

    In other words, what you have pay on the $50 gain in year 2 should equal the write-off value from the previous year. If that makes sense....
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2012
  23. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Last edited: Jan 26, 2012
  24. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    So a $50 loss should result in a tax savings equal to what one would pay on a $50 gain (all things being equal). I don't know if that's true or not, but it should be.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2012
  25. JackBauer

    JackBauer Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    1.) If you don't see an issue with someone who makes 42mm paying an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent, then you are even more out to lunch than I would have thought. I find it hilarious, and telling, that you somehow think before charity a rate of 16 percent would be any better. Talk about out of touch.

    2.) Even if I were to accept your premise of cap gains being subject to double taxation, that's not exactly, err, unique in our economy, and doesn't represent a convincing argument against its existence.

    3.) Your last paragraph doesn't deserve a response as it's the usual thoughtless trolling garbage you're well known for around here.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2012
  26. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Of course a loss can be written off, or deducted off the top. If you pay taxes on gains, then you deduct losses. So if you make $100 on a sale, and lose $50 on another, your "net" will be a $50 gain. You'd pay taxes on the $50, not the $100. That only makes sense. If you lost $40, and then another $50, you'd deduct $90. Remember though that it's not $90 off your taxes. I believe it's $90 off of your taxable income. So basically you'd save whatever your tax rate is, against that $90. If your rate was 20%, then you'd deduct $90, and be saving an actual $18. I could be wrong with some of the particulars, but generally I believe this is how it works. Or so as it was explained to me when I had a stock tank a few years ago. Although with stocks you can carry over a loss to the following year. It gets tricky, but the general process i think i have right.
  27. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    I agree that you should be able to deduct losses (actually mentioned this in a response yesterday, w/drewski, I think)

    Can you? Yes -- but I think only to offset gains, though I'm not sure that's the case. Losses also can be used as both a carryforward and, with more restrictions, as a lookback, I believe. So that can get complicated, but the idea is that it generally should work both ways.
  28. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    fwiw, you're definitely right about the taxable income part (and the $18 v $90 example) and on the general idea

    Only thing that may be a bit off is whether you can apply the capital loss against ordinary income. As I mentioned in my response to PR, I don't think you can (probably b/c of the likely difference in rates?), but I certainly could be wrong.
  29. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You may deduct up to (something like) $1,500 of your capital losses against your ordinary income. However, any extra capital losses may be carried over for a period of up to (something like) 3 years.

    EDIT: I'm talking net capital losses for the year. If you make $80,000 profilt selling Apple stock and lose $50,000 selling Microsoft, you can deduct the entire Microsoft loss against the Apple gains, meaning you'd have $30,000 worth of capital gains to pay tax on. But if all you did was lose $50,000 on Microsoft, then only $1,500 of that can be deducted against your ordinary income.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2012
  30. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It's true for $50 but it's not true for $5,000. Also, I'm pretty sure that capital losses on your house are not deductable but don't quote me on that.

Share This Page